What were the drones doing in South China Sea? If anybody sends a drone in my backyard, I would shoot it down righteously.
Much of the sea is closer to other countries (like the Philippines and Vietnam), but China lays unilateral claim to many of the uninhabited islands.
edit: A map, for reference: http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/5464160/data/south-china-sea-map...
Many people like to underwrite this opinion with the Hague Tribunal findings, but unfortunately UNCLOS itself (article 299) states that it has no authority to decide territorial cases.
In any case, the claims to the islands in the South China Sea are hardly unilateral, as the United States recognized many of them including the Paracels and Scarborough during the Potsdam Declaration, Cairo Declaration, San Fransisco Treaty and others (at the time motivated to punish the imperial Japanese at the end of WWII).
Hell the Cairo Declaration even declared Manchuria and Taiwan as owned by China.
It's funny what the American media bubble does to history.
If you'd like, we can go over the text of UNCLOS, Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and SF Treaty.
I'm genuinely asking, because my light familiarity with those documents is not sparking a connection.
At the time it came to resolve the war, Japan was forced to remove itself from various occupied areas including but not limited to Korea, China, and Pacific Islands.
For instance in the Cairo Declaration it was stated that:
"Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent."
Note that here the United States, Britain and China together recognized Manchuria, Taiwan and the islands off of Taiwan as Chinese. Japan would need to extricate itself from Korea.
The Qing Dynasty, before the war, had explored and occupied the Paracels and the Spratlys - to a minimal degree, since it had never become a great naval power. Indeed, there are a number of instances of Vietnam and China 'trading' the Paracels back and forth to protect their ownership during the occupation of French Indochina.
These islands had also been occupied by imperial Japan (such islands are useful in naval warfare), who was forced to remove itself. The Potsdam Declaration reads "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." These islands were very limited indeed, did not include the Paracels/Spratlys and it should be noted that they do not include the Kurils (something today that the Americans would like to revise history on).
Similarly, section (f) of article 2 of the Potsdam Treaty reads of Japan: "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands."
What we have is a situation where the Philippines never had administration or territorial claims to these islands and where the Qing Dynasty had. In the post-war period, China was not only weak, but could not spend much patrolling the South China Sea - and focused primarily on it's Western Front during the Cold War.
Today, China is trying to build infrastructure, shipping routes and naval security in this area. This is important to China because of its historical vulnerability to naval embargo, through the Strait of Malacca and elsewhere.
The United States had hoped, because of weak territorial enforcement during the postwar period, to make an issue over the ownership of the islands and waters as part of a geopolitical effort to limit the expansion of Chinese influence in an area historically militarily dominated by US projection (it's own National Security concerns pertaining to its continued naval access to potential adversaries and compeditors).
The bulwark of that effort was an attempt to build an Asian consensus, centered around the Philippines (an important US ally and prior colony). However, the effort failed, with states in Asia fracturing in opinion and not willing to commit themselves to a United States led effort to persist its power projection in that way.
This is still evolving of course, but the future looks rather dim with the Philippines (the keystone of the project) backing away.
Doesn't this ignore a long-running civil war around the same time that has some relevance to Taiwan's situation? Namely, which Chinese government was Japan giving Taiwan back too?
The official US position (shared by most of the world) is that Taiwan is Chinese territory. The settlement on that issue is that Taiwan will be fully and formally enveloped into the mainland, along with Hong Kong, the 2040s (IIRC). The US (and most of the world) does not recognize Taiwan as an independent sovereignty. Think Puerto Rico.
On a completely not-realpolitik-based personal side of things, having spent some time in all three of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, a forced eventual unification feels rather sad if it comes with the greater globalized monoculture that the mainland currently has.
It is entirely possible that, in a war or as a settlement, or under pressure, or by sale/trade, or by volunteer Russia will give the Kurils to Japan, or the United States will revise its position on Taiwan or Hong Kong (you've already see a Trump Administration send the signal he's willing to do this).
These relations are complicated, as various decisions made by different sovereignties will be replied to, can spoil relationships, can spoil trust, etc.
A nation can also ruin its reputation by being 'too flippant' in recognizing territory until its not convenient to do so any more. There's a giant fuzzy 'you-have-to-be-able-to-tell-the-future' calculus that is done in simulating various choices on how to proceed with sovereign decisions, as effects can be quite wide ranging.
America flipping its opinion on the sovereignty of the former British colony Hong Kong or on the civil war safehaven Taiwan, would represent a huge and damaging departure in relations with China. The United States may do such a thing, but would only do it if the 'realpolitik' calculus allowed it to risk - or wanted it to aggress - a war.
There's never a simple thing in geopolitics. We can only look to history, to policies and treaties and to potential outcomes to explain and predict. The United States breaking with long standing treaties would be huge news in this regard.
So doesn't this bring us to "it's news that China has started treating these waters differently" for objective reasons vs it only being an "American media bubble" thing?
China is treating these waters differently today for National Security reasons, and because of a unique period of history in which Chinese growth and infrastructure development has skyrocketed (China has been successfully industrializing into a modern economy). I had said: "Today, China is trying to build infrastructure, shipping routes and naval security in this area. This is important to China because of its historical vulnerability to naval embargo, through the Strait of Malacca and elsewhere."
The American media bubble is the narrative that China is being aggressive, that China is being unilateral, that China has no claims (especially vis a vis Philippines), that there is a unanimous interpretation in Asia, etc.
The media bubble in this regard isn't "something has changed" but "this is what's changed and this is what's going on."
It's a nice story about good versus evil and American freedom, sure, but that's only good for headlines and public consumption. It's not what is going to fill the history books.
Citation? It helps to be clear when you use "Chinese" in this context. It is certainly not the US position that Taiwan is PRC territory. They are deliberately ambiguous on this.
> The settlement on that issue is that Taiwan will be fully and formally enveloped into the mainland, along with Hong Kong, the 2040s (IIRC).
First I've heard of this settlement. Again, citations?
> The US (and most of the world) does not recognize Taiwan as an independent sovereignty. Think Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico does is not de jure independent and does not claim to be. Completely different. The ROC is de facto independent.
The termination of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty ("SAMSG") and the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act ("TRA"). In the "SAMDT" it was the policy of the United States that the Republic of China (ROC - Taiwan) was the sole legitimate sovereignty of mainland China.
President Carter terminated SAMDT, passing instead the TRA. The Taiwan Relations Act promotes a "One China Policy" - that of there being only one China. Under this policy, the US government recognizes the PRC (mainland) government, and no longer recognizes Taiwan (ROC) as a sovereignty. In this, there is no formal recognition, state-to-state diplomacy at high levels, present embassy, etc. The TRA makes provisions for the defense of the island in the case of military activity from the mainland. The TRA has been consistently reaffirmed by the United States government for 40 years.
> The settlement on that issue is that Taiwan will be fully and formally enveloped into the mainland, along with Hong Kong, the 2040s.
I have overspoken and confused the Hong Kong case with the Taiwan case. To be very clear: I am and was wrong about the timeline on a formal date for the mainland to envelop Taiwan.
The "Basic Law" of the Constitution of Hong Kong that establishes it as a separate autonomous region expires in (I had to look this up) 1947. This arrangement had been agreed to by the British and the mainland Chinese government, with the understanding the independence would cede after this time.
I had been under the impression that Taiwan had a similar provision in their constitution. However, looking this up I found that it is not the case. ROC and PRC both agree that there is "One China" as does the United States, but there remains disagreement about where the sovereignty resides. A good example of this is that ROC sided entirely with PRC with regard to the South China Sea and the international disputes and findings.
There does not appear to be a deadline on the federalization of the relationship, and I sincerely apologize that I stated this incorrectly.
Now, I do swear to have heard US diplomats and academics discussing the Hong Kong and Taiwan timeframe as a single event: "One Country, Three Systems." I have nothing formal or official to point to in this regard.
> Think Puerto Rico
There are many differences between the two cases and it was not intended to to be taken beyond the most immediate analogy. The US, as by the TRA, does not recognize the sovereignty of Taiwan as an independent sovereignty. I was trying to come up with something American readers might be able to compare that to. PR probably came to mind because it too is an island, and it too is not recognized as a sovereign state. Of course the analogy is not perfect and I would never claim it is.
Thank you for clarifying that to other readers.
There is not a strong constituency of Puerto Rico that claims independent sovereignty. I don't know if they are actively seeking political representation of any sort (as a US state?). There isn't actually much news/information (that I get anyway) about the political climate on PR.
It's definitely something people talk about sometimes as a potential (or for some even predicted) outcome, but it's mostly speculative with little firm basis in general, and even less in terms of any specific time frame.
And Formosa and the Pescadores are today governed by the by the Republic of China, at least.
Mostly, Japan and the United States don't want it to happen. You'll see their bubble selectively translate and report on Thai, Vietnamese, etc press. I'm sorry you seem to be under the impression there's such a uniform voice.
The United States had hoped to build a uniform front and accusation against China, with the Philippines at the center.
That effort failed. And it's getting to be nearly a year.
In any case, you seem to take exception with the 'bubble accusation'. We can talk about that, if you like, but I would be interested in talking about the various declarations and treaties at the end of WWII.
I think you're lying. I don't think you're sorry. I think this is childish, passive-aggressive bullshit from someone who knows how to act like an adult but somehow can't resist acting like a child. Here's how a grown man states what you were trying to say; "There's not such a uniform voice as you think across the different nations you mentioned." For God's sake, grow up. You seem to have some actual facts to present, but a childish tone undermines everything.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/16/freedom-of-navigation-op...
This isn't an outlier in reporting on the situation in the South China Sea: reporting - and the diplomacy - emphasizes the need for the United States to find allies and to build a consensus of Asian countries.
The response from those would-be-allied Asian countries, the policy wonks discuss, has been ambivilent at best. They link to an article in which the Indonesian government criticizes the US for power projection and calls on the US and China to 'restrain themselves'. The Indonesian response in this regard was not an outlier.
Much of the advice to US diplomats was that the FONOPs needed to be changed because the aggressive nature of the military projection undercut the narrative that China was the bully. Advice on changing the operations included doing them silently without much public coverage, or trying to build a coalition so that the US wouldn't 'sail alone'. (The US was unable to build such a coalition.)
There's a lot to say in this regard.
I think your comment(s) are highly constructive, I take seriously what you say, and have been upvoting them.
If China doesn't want to play by the rules everyone else has agreed to, they can go become a bigger version of North Korea.
http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/10/19/edison-publicly-tortured...
https://news.usni.org/2014/07/18/china-sends-uninvited-spy-s...
Russia and the U.S. are members of the Open Skies treaty, meaning we already allow unarmed observation over each other's land as part of building confidence with each other.
Does that justify the United States destroying, de-orbiting, or otherwise taking them?
Get a map. Look at where the drone was taken. See how far away from China it was.
https://www.wired.com/2011/12/iran-did-capture-a-secret-u-s-...
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/1207/US-considere...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chinese-spy-ship-sp...
Look, this sort of thing (observing each other from a safe distance) takes place all the time. We're fine with the Chinese ship shadowing the US one, watching us watching them, and we do the same thing in reverse. That's how naval powers have carried on business for centuries. It's like poker players looking at how many chips their opponents have on the table in order to guess at their strategy on the next hand. You can lok all you want, but you can't reach over and help yourself to one of the other players' chips.