The UNCLOS treaty has no provision to determine sovereignty of any islands, yet the US, a non-signatory to the UNCLOS treaty, is insisting that China abide by the UNCLOS tribunal's decision over sovereignty issues. Makes my head spin.

The UNCLOS treaty is only applicable to setting the territorial rights between different sovereign land masses. If sovereignty of those land masses is disputed, the UNCLOS has no provision to determine whose sovereignty claims is valid, and hence could not render a valid territorial rights finding. That's China's position and , honestly, it makes a lot of sense.

to other countries than they are to China.
Granted there can be a case for them having the territorial rights to some of the islands that are actually off their coast but not ones that are hundreds of miles away to the far south where the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia are.

The distance to the islands from China is not pertinent since China is claiming them by right of discovery. The UK has claim to many islands THOUNSANDS of miles away also by the right of discovery. If proximity was the real determining factor, the U.K. should yield the Falkland Islands to Argentina who also claims them and is much closer.

China's historical claims are significant and can not be dismissed out of hand.

I don't know what the UK claims that isn't inhabited by their citizens. Is there something?

I also can't think of a place the UK is building islands as a way to create enough dry land to pretend they should have a right to claim something.

Is it me or is it just China?

Are astounding.

You don't know if the UK claims uninhabited places?

Good lord. Yes it does. I am not here to do remedial history and geography but here is just one example for you... The Scilly Rocks, and NO they aren't just rocks it's a historical name

The Western Rocks are a group of uninhabited islands and rocks in the south–western part of the Isles of Scilly, United Kingdom, and are renowned for the numerous shipwrecks in the area and the nearby Bishop Rock lighthouse. Wikipedia

Google is your friend, Google uninhabited islands for yourself and see some of the more famous ones and who claims them. Again, good grief.

You can go there as part of a day trip on tourist boats around the isles. I have done, when Bishop Rock lighthouse was manned, and the tourist boat also delivered the mail.

Comparing the Western Rocks to the reefs (which China is trying to build) in the South China Sea is so incredibly ignorant that "good grief" doesn't begin to cover it. I'll say "what the zarking fardwarks do you think you're talking about? Do you really think we're that dumb here?"

Map, for those interested:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Bishop+Rock+Lighthouse/@49.8827352,-6.3910635,3954m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48407525747279f3:0x105c112082518179!8m2!3d49.8728864!4d-6.4457376

St. Agnes is inhabited (and has been, for thousands of years). Bishop Rock is about 6km away.

"Comparing the Western Rocks to the reefs (which China is trying to build) in the South China Sea is so incredibly ignorant that "good grief" doesn't begin to cover it."

Wow, so much straw man in that comment.

First, lets start with this: "the reefs (which China is trying to build)". If you are implying China is not presently claiming and occupying internationally recognized islands also in the South China Sea, you are simply wrong. Some artificial reefs are being constructed but also naturally occurring islands and rocks are being enlarged, which is totally legal according to the UNCLOS.

Second, I did not "compare" The Scilly Rocks to China's reefs, let alone its natural islands. I answered this question from a poster "I don't know what the UK claims that isn't inhabited by their citizens. Is there something? " I gave the Scilly Rocks as an example and told him to google claims on uninhabited islands, I was unable to provide another link from my phone at the time, it was a major pain doing it once.

Of course I was being provocative in giving that example and I was hoping to illicit a response saying how baseless it was THAT ALSO ignored the comment about claims on other uninhabited islands. Thank you for stepping forward and doing so.

Lets remember that while China claims some uninhabited islands and reefs in the South China Seaa, that it is also already inhabiting several reefs and islands. So is Taiwan, which claims to be the legitimate government of all of China, so their claims reinforce each other. But on to the uninhabited parts now...

Does any other country have recognized claims on uninhabited islands hundreds if not thousands of miles away? Yes, of course. Here are a few examples:

The Antipodes are a group of volcanic islands south of New Zealand. The cold climate and harsh winds make the islands too harsh a place to live. It is known for numerous shipwrecks and deaths, some from trying to survive on the islands, despite supplies being left there in castaway huts, as seen in the photograph. Two people died by shipwreck there as recently as 1999.


Clipperton Island is actually a coral atoll south of Mexico and west of Guatemala in the Pacific. It was claimed first by the French, then Americans, who mined it for guano. Mexico took possession in 1897, and allowed a British company to mine guano there. In 1914, the Mexican civil war caused the island's 100 or so residents to be cut off from transportation and supplies. In 1917, the last surviving islanders, three women, were rescued and evacuated. Ownership reverted to France, which manned a lighthouse on Clipperton Island, but after World War II it was completely abandoned. There are occasional scientific expeditions to the atoll.


Palmyra Atoll is 1,000 miles south of Hawaii, and is a territory owned by the United States. However, as isolated as it is, it is officially uninhabited and unorganized. The U.S. military built an airstrip there during World War II, which has fallen into ruin. The atoll now is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife agency, with the exception of Cooper Island, which is owned by the Nature Conservancy. Palmyra Atoll was the setting for a double murder in 1974 which became the basis for the novel and then miniseries called And the Sea Will Tell.
No map, sorry, but its a 1,000 miles south of Hawaii.

Oh, and lets not forget all the territorial land claims in an island so big it's a continent -- Antartica. And of course Antartica is THOUSANDS of miles away from claimants like Norway. But again, some how this don't seem to matter in the discussion about the South China Sea. Double standard? Yes.

Seven states maintain a territorial claim on eight territories in Antarctica. These countries have tended to site their scientific observation and study facilities in Antarctica within their claimed territory.


OK, so if Antarctic land claims are considered valid by right of discovery, why should China's land claims in the South China Sea fbe dismissed out of hand? There are more Chinese per square mile of claimed land in the South China sea then there are people in any of those Antarctic land claims. Seems like a double standard to just label all of China's claims as outlandish in comparison . Saying this does not mean I don't think there are significant and valid claims by other claimant nations, in fact, China itself has acknowledged these and offered to conduct bilateral negotiations with the other claimants.

The lack of information and the selective information and the slanted information being pumped out by the media on this issue makes many people, some who have posted here, think this is all about China building artificial islands to steal land from its neighbors. That is simply a contortion of the actual issue.

for reefs, island and rocks that are far closer to smaller countries such as the Philippines. You're spending your time trying to compare islands that are far from anywhere with islands that are much closer to the Philippines. For instance, one of those in this dispute, Scarborough Shoal, is 137 miles from Luzon Island - about 4 times closer than China. China wants this for nationalist reasons and to give it military and economic control of the South China Sea, and here you are, siding with the powerful, for awful reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarborough_Shoal

Now, China has a better claim to the Paracel Islands, because they're actually closer to it than to other countries.

Stop the BS. Point out where I said I support China's expansionist claims. POINT IT OUT.

I said China has valid and significant claims in the area AS DO OTHER CLAIMANT NATIONS. Sorry for the caps but I am sick of the mischaracterization of my position as you are doing here.

What problem do you have with THAT? There are competing claims. The issue should be settled peacefully. China has offered to hold bilateral negotiations with all other claimant nations. HOW is stating these things wrong?

" and here you are, siding with the powerful, for awful reasons. " Good lord. Point out where I am wrong. Or apologize.
I bet you can't do either.

This level of vitriol is what's a disgrace on DU. Just because I don't reject ALL of China's claims out of hand, I am, and I quote you again, "siding with the powerful, for awful reasons."?!?!?

You should be ashamed of your last post. Its unsubstantiated vitriol. But thank you for once again allowing me to demonstrate how reasonable my positions actually are.

China has valid and significant claims in the area.
Other claimant nations also have valid and significant claims in the area.
China has stated that it is willing to hold bilateral negotiations with other claimant nations.
The issue should be settled peacefully and the saber rattling from both sides should stop.

Wow, what outlandish statements to make here on DU? Not really, they are incredibly reasonable.

Are people here really so stuck in our media's propaganda bubble that even mildly dissenting opinions, such as I have posted here, are seen as outrageous? It sure seems that way.

in territorial disputes. This has been pointed out repeatedly. But thank you for admitting that you feel some of China's territorial claims may be valid. The Falkland Islands are much closer to Argentina than the UK and both nations claim them, but the UK controls them. Proximity is not always the determining factor. Historical claims, habitation and other factors can over rule mere proximity as a basis for a territorial claim.

That's the principle there - self-determination. Many of China's claims in the South China Sea are dubious identifications with old records from hundreds of years ago. There are no inhabitants' view to follow. The purpose is to increase China's power. And you are incredibly invested in standing with China on this - the evidence is the effort you're putting into this thread to support their claims.

When I said proximity is not the only issue? Thank you.

"And you are incredibly invested in standing with China on this - the evidence is the effort you're putting into this thread to support their claims."

Please stop mischaracterizing other people, like you are doing now. Please tell me which position I stated in this thread that you disagree with. The mischaracterization should stop.

China has valid and significant claims in the region AS DO OTHER claimant nations. China has offered to hold bilateral negotiations to settle this matter with these countries. The saber rattling and war mongering by both sides should stop and the issue should be settled peacefully.

WHAT, again, is wrong with stating those positions? Why do they provoke vitriol from people like you? WHAT exactly did I say that you disagree with? Stop the attempts at mind reading and mischaracterizing me, just state what it is that I said that you disagree with.
Please.

Do you really think China's claims are based on artificial islands? That they are not claiming and occupying actual real islands as well as rocks, all of which can be enlarged according to the UNCLOS treaty? Again, good grief.

a few thousand years atleast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_the_Philippines

And I will wager there are written records where Native Americans have much more recent claims in the USA then your prehistoric settlement of the Phillipines article.

Call me when you want to give the USA back to the Native Americans. Honestly, can we stop being silly?

So, I take it you don't want to recognize the claims of the indigenous people and give Australia, New Zealand, Canada and of course the USA back to them? Sorry but I am still chuckling at your prehistoric migration/settlement claim argument.

Other nations besides China also have significant and valid claims on the area, but to dismiss China's claims out of hand is just disingenuous.

China has always said it is willing to negotiate on a one to one basis with other claimant nations.

That nine dash map is China's opening stance for these negotistions, it's not their final all or nothing position.

Cstanleytech, thanks for the back and forth on this topic and I hope my jesting replies didn't fall too flat. I am talking about the prehistoric migration stuff.

China has made the point that it has negotiated territorial claims settlements with 12 of the 14 countries that neighbors it.

Good job, good work.

Who is to say the Chinese discovered anything?

When do they claim they 'discovered' whatever?

People have been moving over these waters for thousands if not tens of thousands of years.

Are you are saying that you have no knowledge of what China's basis for their claims are?

Amazing admission from a poster with such a strong opinion on this matter.

in the region that are far closer to some of these areas where they are trying this bullshit to fuck off.

Again, good grief.

Point out any factual statement I have made that is in error. I don't think you can. That's why you resorted to insults. Sorry that I disagree with your view on this issue, next time why not post something substantiative.

It's a shame that name calling like you did just now has become common place here on DU. Can't win an argument, yell PUTIN! Dislike a point of view, scream HATE AMERICA FIRST! Honestly, it reeks of McCarthyism. Silence opposing views with smears.

Again, good grief

You rant at and insult anyone who disagrees with you, and all your arguments are based on rhetoric rather than substance. While it is certainly ironic that a non-signatory to the UNCLOS (the US) is urging another signatory to abide by it, the arguable hypocrisy opf the US position in no way validates that of China. whose territorial claim has never been properly filed and is based only on a map published by the then-government of China after WW2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line in case people were wondering).

I'm quite interested in this topic as my wife is Vietnamese/Chinese and so we hear arguments from both parts of her family whenever China and vietnam have a public disagreement about this issue. As you claim to be so well-informed about the matter you will surely be aware of just how shallow the roots of China's historical claim are, as well as the fact that simply asserting jurisdiction doesn't automatically validate it.

Maybe you should try arguing on substance yourself, instead of posturing.

Did you read the post I said had no substance?

It said "I see you have moved on from Putin apologia to Wang stroking"

Great God almighty. And you get on a high horse for me calling out THAT type of post here on DU? Talk about posturing.

Again, good grief.

Look, please point out any factually incorrect statements that you think I have made in this thread. I don't think you can, but please do so and I will gladly correct myself. My position is that China has valid claims in the area as do several other claimant nations. I feel to dismiss China's claims out of hand entirely is disingenuous. I also feel the media has been one sided in its presentation if this issue hence all the blather about artificial islands. The claims go way beyond artificial islands and I am sure you know that. I stand by these positions and I feel they are entirely reasonable. So prove me wrong or incorrect in what I have said.

Again you make no substantive argument for why we should believe China's claims when they are facially spurious. I really don't care what your opinions on the media are, although I note without surprise your choice to divert attention to a convenient scapegoat, a common tendency among media manipulators. I don't rely on the media for my explanations nor chave I cited any of them here so your choice to bring this up is nothing more than an attempt to distract.

Thanks for outing yourself. Still waiting for you to point out any factual errors on my part. For you to defend a post that said " so you have moved on from a Puttin apologia to Wang Stroking" shows your true colors and close mindedness. Nice.

Note, readers, how s/he doesn't see fit to let you in on this great insight.

The '9 dash line' is based on a map issued by the Republic of China in 1947, based on an earlier map published in 1935. That's the document the Chinese have cited in making their claim, and absent any attempt to formally file a territorial claim by prescribed means I think its worthless. This history of the Chinese claim is spelled out in detail in the Wikipedia link I provided earlier, I see no reason to uselessly recapitulate it all, and I note that again you offer no evidence or substantive claims to the contrary. Great lawyering on your part but not the kind that's going to persuade anyone.

Good grief. Back to accusing people of being communist agents now?? On a democratic forum? In DU? How pathetic and sad

Last edited Thu Jul 7, 2016, 11:19 AM - Edit history (3)

That map is not the only thing China's claim is based on. For you to keep insisting otherwise is simply wrong. Sigh.

"The history of the Chinese claim is spelled out in the Wikipedia link I gave earlier "

Good lord, no it is NOT. Your link is JUST about the one map. Why do you keep insisting that map is the only basis for China's claim? That is just mind boggling wrong.

Look, it's ok to be wrong or make a misstatement, but it's crazy to keep defending a factually wrong statement like you are here. That nap is simply not the ONLY BASIS for China's claim and you should know that by now just search for South China Sea Claims on Wikipedia and see there OTHER article that discusses all the claimant nations positions. It's sad that you can't man up and admit your mistake.

edit added : gee, seems the OTHER wikipedia article outlining all the claimant nations positions is very hard to find now, I just spent an hour trying to turn it up again. Hmm. Wonder why?

But here is an article from the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong that discusses China's position:

--------------------
On South China Sea disputes, China stands on the side of history, logic and the law. Tung Chee-hwa lays out the legal and historical context in which China has declined to participate in international court proceedings on the disputed islands, and says Beijing’s actions have been anything but aggressive.

There is a question as to who has sovereignty over the Spratlys. The Chinese discovered the Spratlys (known as Nansha Island in China), with the earliest archaeological evidence of their use dating back hundreds of years. Navigation guides for fishery activity, compiled by fishermen from Hainan Island ( 海南 ) as early as the 18th century, not only designated specific names to most features in the Spratlys, but also provided detailed narratives on the direction and distances of the navigational routes. Chinese fishermen would live on these islands during the more favourable fishing seasons.

In addition, China exercised sovereignty over the Spratlys, going back to the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368), starting with an official survey of Chinese territories covering the Spratlys, followed later by the formal incorporation of the Spratlys as well as Hainan Island into the administration of Guangdong province during the Qing dynasty.
An illuminated globe shows the South China Sea at a museum in Pathum Thani, Thailand. The Chinese discovered the Spratlys, with the earliest archaeological evidence of their use dating back hundreds of years.

In more recent history, towards the end of the second world war, there began ample, clear and convincing evidence that China has sovereignty over the Spratlys and that is recognised by the international community, including the US. These can be found in very important international treaties and declarations.

First is the Cairo Declaration of 1943. Second is the Potsdam Declaration of 1945. Third is the Treaty of Peace, also known as the Treaty of San Francisco, signed on September 8, 1951, between 48 nations and Japan. (Because of the onset of the cold war, neither the People’s Republic of China nor the Republic of China was invited to San Francisco). Fourth is the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty, signed on April 28, 1952, between Japan and the Republic of China. Fifth is the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, passed in 1971, recognising that the People’s Republic of China was the only lawful representative of China to the United Nations, in place of the Republic of China. And, lastly, the Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People’s Republic of China, signed on September 29, 1972, which acknowledged that all territories stolen from the Chinese shall be restored.
Today, of all the features in the Spratlys, Vietnam has 29, the Philippines has eight and China has nine
In each one of these treaties or declarations, reading them separately, or reading the six together, you will find definitive evidence supporting the legal position that the Spratly Islands belong to China.
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1952856/south-china-sea-disputes-china-stands-side-history-logic-and
------------------------------

You don't have to agree with all these claims by China but to dismiss them out of hand is wrong and, honestly, playing into a disturbing degree of saber rattling and war mongering.

There is a question as to who has sovereignty over the Spratlys. The Chinese discovered the Spratlys (known as Nansha Island in China), with the earliest archaeological evidence of their use dating back hundreds of years. Navigation guides for fishery activity, compiled by fishermen from Hainan Island ( 海南 ) as early as the 18th century, not only designated specific names to most features in the Spratlys, but also provided detailed narratives on the direction and distances of the navigational routes. Chinese fishermen would live on these islands during the more favourable fishing seasons.

In addition, China exercised sovereignty over the Spratlys, going back to the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368), starting with an official survey of Chinese territories covering the Spratlys, followed later by the formal incorporation of the Spratlys as well as Hainan Island into the administration of Guangdong province during the Qing dynasty.
An illuminated globe shows the South China Sea at a museum in Pathum Thani, Thailand. The Chinese discovered the Spratlys, with the earliest archaeological evidence of their use dating back hundreds of years. Photo: AP
Why the Chinese are so territorial about the South China Sea

In more recent history, towards the end of the second world war, there began ample, clear and convincing evidence that China has sovereignty over the Spratlys and that is recognised by the international community, including the US. These can be found in very important international treaties and declarations.

First is the Cairo Declaration of 1943. Second is the Potsdam Declaration of 1945. Third is the Treaty of Peace, also known as the Treaty of San Francisco, signed on September 8, 1951, between 48 nations and Japan. (Because of the onset of the cold war, neither the People’s Republic of China nor the Republic of China was invited to San Francisco). Fourth is the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty, signed on April 28, 1952, between Japan and the Republic of China. Fifth is the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, passed in 1971, recognising that the People’s Republic of China was the only lawful representative of China to the United Nations, in place of the Republic of China. And, lastly, the Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People’s Republic of China, signed on September 29, 1972, which acknowledged that all territories stolen from the Chinese shall be restored.
Today, of all the features in the Spratlys, Vietnam has 29, the Philippines has eight and China has nine
In each one of these treaties or declarations, reading them separately, or reading the six together, you will find definitive evidence supporting the legal position that the Spratly Islands belong to China.

Since the 1950s, the Vietnamese have been actively and aggressively taking over many of these features in the Spratlys. The Philippines has also done the same, starting in the 1970s. So, today, of all the features in the Spratlys, Vietnam has 29, the Philippines has eight and China has nine.

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1952856/south-china-sea-disputes-china-stands-side-history-logic-and

Sorry for repeating this from another post, but I think it deserves to not get lost. The "China can go fuck itself" post seemed a good place to contrast the two positions. Frankly, China's seems to have more basis and thought put into it than the "China can go fuck itself" argument.

Wow, I am shocked at the degree of vitriol my comments have received in this thread. I have repeatedly asked posters to please point out factual errors in any of my statements, but so far no one has been able to.

Here are the positions I have articulated in this thread, I continue to think they are reasonable and stand by these"

1. China has valid and significant territorial claims in the South China Sea that should not be dismissed out of hand.

2. Other claimant nations also have significant and valid territorial claims in the area.

3. China has stated that it is willing to hold bilateral negotiations with other claimant nations to resolve their differences.

4.The dispute is not about artificial islands stealing land from China's neighbors.

5. China currently claims and occupies internationally recognized natural islands in the South China Sea.

6. Taiwan, which also claims to be the legitimate government of all of China, currently claims and occupies internationally recognized natural islands in the South China Sea. Taiwan's and China's claims reinforced each other.

7. Other nations have claimed uninhabited islands and territory hundreds if not thousands of miles away. I asked why is China being held to a double standard on this point.

8. That the media has been one sided and slanted to the point where all most people know is that China is building artificial islands. China's viewpoint is given little or no exposure.

9. That much saber rattling is going on in a dispute that should be settled peacefully.


Wow, what outlandish statements. I should be ashamed of myself. /sarcasm off

By Peter Lee on July 7, 2016 in China, Japan, Southeast Asia

The Philippines and Vietnam already have Air Defense Identification Zones in the South China Sea. So why can’t China have one? It is legal under international law to unilaterally declare an ADIZ and it is a face-saving way too for Beijing to keep an internationally recognized China presence in the South China Sea if the Hague tribunal rules against its jurisdictional claims. Judging by the experience in the East China Sea, China has tried to use ADIZ as an instrument of engagement, not aggression.

There are already at least two Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZs) in the South China Sea … and none of them are Chinese.

One is a Philippine Air Defense Identification Zone (PADIZ) and the other is a Vietnam Air Defense Identification Zone (VADIZ). Then would a PRC ADIZ (People’s Republic of China Air Defense Identification Zone) in the South China Sea (SCS) really be so bad?

There has been an epidemic of digital handwringing concerning the possibility that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) will declare an ADIZ in the South China Sea in retaliation for an unfavorable outcome in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) arbitration.

http://atimes.com/2016/07/china-has-right-to-declare-adiz-in-the-south-china-sea/

"Maybe, maybe not. I’m not clutching my pearls in any case. It should be, but perhaps won’t be, understood that an ADIZ is not a declaration of sovereignty or restricted air space. It means that aircraft, civilian or military, that enter the ADIZ are expected to identify themselves and declare their intentions.

ADIZs serve as an early warning/notification system along the lines of “Though I am flying near your borders and military installations, I do not intend to drop a bomb on you.”

The size of an ADIZ is a function of the speed of foreign aircraft, location of home airfields, and the time it takes to scramble a jet and visually examine and determine the intentions of an unidentified approaching aircraft before it gets within “doing something scary” range.

The nation with the biggest ADIZ portfolio in the world is, of course, the United States, setting up the same kind of double standard argument that bedevils the US efforts to explain why the China must adhere to UNCLOS even though the US has not signed the treaty."