|
Post by Swampy on Jan 11, 2013 10:42:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Jan 19, 2013 11:41:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Jan 19, 2013 12:58:46 GMT -5
I wonder how far the players are willing to go?
All the way to nukes on Beijing, Tokyo and LA?
SJ
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Jan 19, 2013 13:50:05 GMT -5
China is flexing its new military muscles to decide the open debats about its sea-borders in its favor. The USA and other SEATO nations are seen as weak enough to test them.
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Jan 19, 2013 15:15:49 GMT -5
Is China a signatory to the International Law of the Sea?
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Jan 19, 2013 16:09:13 GMT -5
Is China a signatory to the International Law of the Sea? Wouldn't make any difference even if she did sign it.
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Jan 19, 2013 16:17:32 GMT -5
The question above has prompted me to check out the UN International Law of the Sea Treaty. China is a signatory but the USA is not. Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines are all signatories.
Looking at the area of the South China Sea, and the claims by China, I see that the 'Japanese' Islands are a bit suss. From what i can see and relating that to the Treaty, it seems that the islands are (just) on the Chinese Continental shelf. They do not appear as on the much smaller Japanese Continental shelf.
The Scarborough Shoals are DEFINITELY a valid Philippine claim, and I can see no valid claim by China under the terms of the Treaty.
The Paracels are more a valid Vietnamese claim than a PRC one.
Other views?
SJ
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Jan 19, 2013 16:38:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Jan 19, 2013 17:12:41 GMT -5
Thank you for that very informative and helpful essay.
I had not even heard of the 'Nine Dash Line', which I doubt would get much support in the UN. It would be a very bad precedent for other areas on this planet.
We live in interesting times.
SJ
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Jan 20, 2013 13:30:36 GMT -5
They have this territorial claim even on their passports now.
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Jan 20, 2013 14:22:11 GMT -5
Looking at a map of the South China Sea, I wonder why the Chinese did not put the Nine Dash Line at the high water mark of the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam coast.
Their claim to the Spratleys in particular, is ridiculous. Nowhere near the Chinese Continental Shelf, and clearly otherwise in International waters.
JMO
SJ
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Jan 21, 2013 12:09:26 GMT -5
When it comes to securing their sea-lines China is resorting to historical claims. A Chinese official told - with a smile - that since the Battle of the Kalkar River large parts of Europe belonged to the Chinese territory and that we never were allowed to become independent and so please remember to pay the over-due tributes of the past 800 years.
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Jan 21, 2013 12:11:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Jan 21, 2013 12:23:19 GMT -5
China is claiming that the USA broke its promise to stay neutral in this dispute when Clinton announced that the disputed islands belong to Japan and so are protected by SEATO treaties. Exactly. The US will have to defend Japan, because, if not, the Japanese may feel betrayed and start rearming. The Chinese are preparing for a conflict with the greatest military power on Earth, and they must know it's going to be a one-sided contest.
|
|
|
Post by griffin on Jan 21, 2013 23:13:23 GMT -5
Check out the map of where these islands are located. It appears Japan's main islands are quite some distance from the disputed islands whereas they are closer to the Chinese mainland.
Paul
|
|