China’s claim to the Spratly Islands emerged in first half of the 20th century
cimsec.org
cimsec.org
Hacker News is a large community with people on all sides of all issues in all regions. Assume good faith, and check your matches, lighters, and brass knuckles at the door.
None of these are mistakes, they're political claims.
The Aegean dispute is quite an interesting case study for anyone who wants to dive into how this all works. Due to the many islands in combination with international law (UNCLOS) it ends up screwing over Turkey massively, which unsurprisingly hasn't signed. In the south china sea this isn't as big a deal, but still important due to shipping, rare minerals, fishing rights etc.
Turnabout is fair play, you know.
Unless one wishes to pretend that certain events in 1974 have no role to play in the equation.
Either way Greek/Turkish relations are far too complex to link it to 1974 as a causal factor. They have territorial claims that are centuries old. e.g. take Lesbos, quite clearly Greek if you ask me, but also insignificantly, was in the hands of the Ottoman empire for 400-500 years. Compare that to a US history timeframe and it's pretty clear there's some basis for both positions. All of it is political, relatively recent events in Cyprus are but one facet of Greek/Turkish relations and to be precise it wasn't so much 1974 really... The Turkish intervention against the coup that year tends to be viewed as a legitimate action. It's what happened since in 1975 and beyond, the occupation of Cyprus, which is viewed as illegal.
But this language that sees Turkey as the one being "massively screwed over" in the region - that I think we dispense with.
Turkey should have signed UNCLOS a long time ago. 168 countries have. The only reason they postpone it is to maintain claims over Greece. Signing UNCLOS would also mean that their warships can no longer venture near Athens while claiming to be on international waters. And of course they'd finally have to stop pretending that the Greek-Cypriot EEZ connection doesn't exist.
I can see why Turkey and China are abusing historical data, archives, archeology, myths etc, just like you said, but I can't help but notice that they don't have any valid claims, and the moral thing to do (if there is one) would most likely be to drop those claims.
i.e. if anything north of Antalya has no more connection to the Mediterranean or Atlantic Ocean (i.e. access to the sea) without going through Greek waters, that's an issue for Turkey. Greece already 'owns' about 50% of the Aegean, 12nm would extend that past 70%.
International law is the area of law least concerned with morality. Everyone disagrees but that's how it works because there's no such thing as a world court, world government, world police force. Just some semblance of it in our institutions that make a good effort but where political power is still key. Greece doesn't come close to Turkey's geopolitical power and has no explicit support from any major powers on this issue. That's why it hasn't changed from 6nm despite the law.
I would disagree by the way that they don't have valid claims. Perhaps under strict application of international law (which doesn't really exist) they'd lose. But they also make non-legal claims to equity and make claims about genuine concerns of the so called greek lake, which make quite a lot of sense.
Let's just assume that it is.
But you'd have to agree also that's hard to have much sympathy for Turkey as the victimized party in the region. Or to repurpose a quote from Apocalypse Now:
"What do you call it when the bully accuses the bully?"
Unless you are New Zealand :D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93New_Zealand_...
How many of them would consider P.R. China to be more of a bully than the USA?
There's little reason the two will drift into alignment in the future, because of the reasons the Spratlys are sought in the first place: a prime spot for force projection, proximity to global shipping lanes, and credible rumours of hydrocarbon reserves, in descending order.
The first part of the article mentions the strategic and economic resources in the region. Do we think that China would be minding its own business if these mistakes had not been made? It seems more likely that we would simply be left with the "ancient and historical claim[s] to the reefs and rocks in the South China Sea" without the attendant maps from the early 20th century.
Sure, these aren't China's motivation, but they are China's argument for the legitimacy of their claims. To the extent this research can be said to argue for a political outcome, it is less about dissuading China from its claims and more about reducing those claims from "legitimate" to simply "effective". (Which is more than enough for the Chinese, even if they accepted the research at face value -- which they won't.)
No doubt, nearly every piece of real estate in the world has been controlled by multiple governmental parties at some point in history, and can thus be contested. Perhaps Mexico will want Texas back? But what about the Native Americans in the area? Maybe the French will contest that the Louisiana Purchase was illegitimate on a technicality? How about identifying all the potential claimants to the land in Israel - we can add religious claims to the standard legal and geopolitical claims. Claims are noise, omnipresent for everything, not signal of much significance.
On the other hand, we want the debate to stay in the legal realm. I was just reading that rule of law for international disputes dates back only to the early to mid-twentieth century (depending on how you date it). Before then, war was the 'legal' way to resolve it; it wasn't outlawed effectively until the UN was formed right after WWII.
Rather than rewriting history now, I think China would do far better to blatantly object to any rules defining sea territories based on what small islands the nations who were eager to colonize managed to seize, back when; and instead argue that taking the population densities in the area is reasonable when divying up the sea. That's their real point, and it's a pretty good one.
The trouble with inventing claims and shoving military forces into places you'd like to have now, is that there's no end to it. It's a promise of eternal war. Eternal irredentism and revanchism. Bound to make 'em unpopular. China could make a legitimate argument, in my view, but even now they aren't bothering to do that. Pity.
I'd rather China invited other nations to discuss creating a law of the sea that's more reasonable than "small island theory" that comes down to us from colonial times.
I don’t think that is china’s point at all. China also defines national waters with a much larger buffer than most other countries, including the USA.
If they do claim that as a rationalization, the cognitive dissonance to dismiss the hypocrisy must be amazing. However, I've never heard them make such a rationalization before, and I don't think they have.
re SCS, I haven't mentioned or endorsed any precise boundary.
What do you base that on?
> I don't think they're wrong about that.
Should international law depend on what people think? In every situation, we can find people who think all sorts of things. I think law works better when it's based on fair rules.
I don't think a large population gives anyone the right seize territory from others. I think that's an awful idea, and i can't think of one legal principle that agrees. Should the US get to seize parts of Canada? China parts of Russia?
Should we listen to what you think? I think even I get an opinion and fairness that ignores numbers needs some justification. Seizing is a different topic - I was the one who said following the seizing small islands theory of sea law was a bad idea, remember?
How about "Set aside dispute and pursue joint development"[0]?
I think one thing you are right about is besides "joint development", we do need a regional LAW (rather than just an agreement) to completely settle the whole South China Sea thing.
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/ziliao_665539/3602_665543/36...
Personally, I hope neighbors around the South China Sea can eventually found a way to share the area once and for all without causing new conflict. Many treasures has been turned into shitty hot potatoes because of that sea already, that needs to stop.
Maybe this is a little over-simplified? Too many histories need to be dig into before the problem can be explained and understood completely. Let's hope those politicians will figure out how to solve it.
I don't think any Western country settled Taiwan, ever. The Netherlands controlled it for ~40 years in the 17th century, but that's as close as it comes. Taiwan was a frontier of China, with a native population, for much of history. Exiles of all sorts would set up there.
Japan (not a Western country) effective forced China to cede it at the end of the 19th century, and ruled Taiwan until losing it in WWII.
A few years later, the latest exiles, the Nationalists, fled there upon losing the civil war with the Communists. The government they created has controlled Taiwan since then.
Which ones and when? I'm pretty certain that isn't the case.
Reminds me of a very old grammar joke, husband interrupts wife in bed with another. Wife: "You startled me." Husband: "No dear, I am startled. You were surprised."
It does not affect evidence dated back before.
On the other hand, similar arguments could effectively be found for other countries who also land the claims. As their claims were only made more recently, as well as their governments, all after a long time of western colonization.
Different claims made by different countries must all be examined. Put one in the spotlight without examining others could only raise suspicions.
The Republic of China is the official name of Taiwan; mainland China is The People's Republic of China.
The last Imperial dynasty, the Qing, usually is dated to have ended in 1911. There was a period of intermittent civil war and various claims to government until the Communists defeated the Nationalists in 1949.
1949 is usually given as the date of the founding of the current Chinese state. (The Nationalists fled to Taiwan, which became the Republic of China.)
Surely any "historical facts" have no importance whatsoever in geopolitical maneuvers.
It's hell.
The current power in china actually is not very consistent in maintaining its territories. If history based on Qing empire, the territorial claims would be very different.
It is all political.
For this area strangely even I studied politics even aware of it. Unlike a little island japan and china claiming sovereignty and Taiwan, it is really not much mentioned until lately.
Hence, it is more about another empire raising up, not about claims.
As regards the style of this empire, good luck you have a place where only its IT firm can do business and others including Apple has to hand over their databases.
IT people should concern, even if it is political. Too much at stack. If the chinese norm becomes the internet standard (as its communist chief tried in internet conference), you will be all affected.
I've recently read a book The China Dream: Great Power Thinking and Strategic Posture in the Post-American Era by the Chinese general Liu Mingfu and the country is by admission not a proponent of Human rights (but rather "Peace" and "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics")
Last year China VC funding grew tremendously [1]. China will surpass the US GDP in 15-20 years [2] or so (if not less), and dealing with China is difficult in the technology industry. Google, Facebook, the YC backed Airbnb [3], Uber and many more US companies have tried to enter the market with difficulty.
I understand nationalism is a problem especially in the Trump era but this issue will be with us for the foreseeable future and the tech community has a special responsibility to ensure the universal values of Human Rights are defended.
[1] https://www.eastwestbank.com/ReachFurther/News/Article/China... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-26/china-to-... [3] http://www.businessinsider.com/three-challenges-facing-airbn...
Actually, China's claim is political not historical.
There is simply too much nationalism and national pride locked up with the whole South China Sea and Taiwan that no amount of logic and truth can change how it is perceived in China.
The South China Sea dispute has nothing to facts like these, and all about geopolitics and power within China. Like with the Austria pre-ww2, if the Chinese were to invade and conquer Taiwan and control the entire SCS, they'll magically find other "distractions" and "conflicts" to distract people away from their own misrule and corruption.
With Putin's Russia and the CCP, there must always be enemies (both internal and external). If they don't exist, you create one (think FalunGong)
in China, it's likely about not setting precedent for sub states seceding, making the country less powerful because smaller, as well as making the "communist" setup look weaker/optional. Are these the same as 1984? I don't know.
In many ways this can be compared to the purpose of war in the feudal middle ages where land always needed to be conquered to be given as fiefs to up-and-coming nobility so that nobility would support the current king in his strive to remain in power. Things change but the basic tenet stays the same: those in power want to remain there and will use the means at their disposition to do so.
Wanna maybe expand on the point you're trying to make?
Let's not pretend this doesn't also apply to the UK, the US, Germany, France, etc.
So it’s not just national pride, there is a huge strategic element at play also.
It's much more important than submarines. Their trade, and access to resources such as oil, goes through that territory controlled by others (the US especially).
It always feels like the mods are against you. This is the Hostile Media Effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
It's not equivalent. At HN (and in the U.S. and Europe), white males and christians are strong and secure; the threat they face from discrimination is very little. They aren't going to be lynched, enslaved, deported; they won't be denied education or other public services, or be denied jobs or power (the few jobs and little power they don't already have).
Consider a room with 40 people who can't leave. 36 are blue-eyed people and 4 are green-eyed. There is a long history of many blue-eyed people enslaving, oppressing, lynching, discriminating against, and hating green-eyed people. If a green-eyed person says, 'blue-eyed people are scum and we should kill them all', they might get some looks and some people might take a few steps away, but there isn't much threat. If a blue-eyed person says it about green-eyed people ...
Or they could just say, 'don't hire green people'. Again, it's much different if the powerful or the disempowered say the same thing. Another example is if you are a woman working in SV in an entry-level job. If you say, 'we shouldn't hire men', it's just odd. If the CEO says 'we shouldn't hire women', it's a serious threat to your job.