Like Tree51Likes

China's 6 Wars in the next 50 Years

Reply
Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... LastLast
  1. #111

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7,151

    The Guardian: China pulls out of UN process over territorial dispute with Philippines

    China is taking the highly unusual step of refusing to participate in a United Nations arbitration process over a territorial conflict with the Philippines, one of five countries challenging Beijing’s claims of ownership over the oil-rich South China Sea.
    Who needs the UN when you have an aircraft carrier.

  2. #112
    ouwen
    Quote Originally Posted by drumbrake:

    It is understandable that China is withdrawing it's 2009 and 2012 UN applications for establishing a country's continental shelf and 200 mile maritime limits. Korea will likely follow suit. Japan has created a dead end for both China and Korea by claiming that the Okinawa trough is just a small rift in the continental shelf....

    Korea and China share a continental shelf, and agree to an equidistant line between them. But in the direction of Japan, that continental shelf extends over 200 miles. Both Korea and China gave up some of their continental shelf to give Japan two shared resources zones. Despite this generosity, Japan filed an objection to Korea and China's applications which halted consideration of all applications by the UN. Japan has created additional stalemate by refusing to file it's own application.

    China's interpretation of the geography is that
    "...the Okinawa Trough proves that the continental shelves of China and Japan are not connected, that the Trough serves as the boundary between them, and that the Trough should not be ignored ..
    Japan's interpretation of the geography is that
    "...the trough is just an incidental depression in a continuous continental margin between the two countries ... and that any legal effect of the trough should be ignored ...."
    The Okinawa trough is a back-arc basin formed by extension within the continental lithosphere behind the far deeper Ryukyu Trench-arc system.[B][U] It has a large section more than 3,300 feet (1,000 metres) deep and a maximum depth of 8,912 feet (2,716 metres).

    Japan calling this an "incidental depression" might seem to be a stupid claim, but any objection, with or without merit, halts all consideration of an application by UN rules.

    To the South, Japan has halted consideration of China's application by claiming the Senkaku Islands in a second objection. Japan's objection quoted the UN rule that an application cannot be considered if their exists any land dispute between countries with opposing boundaries under 400 miles apart. Japan stated that there exists such a dispute over the Senkaku islands.

    How this matters is a mystery, because China did not claim the Senkaku Islands or use them as a base line to draw it's maritime limits. They drew their lines as if the Islands belong to Japan.

    It is becoming clear that Japan's PR over the Senkaku islands is simply a ruse to halt China's rightful maritime limits from being legally established. This permits Japan to take natural resources from the Chinese continental shelf and 200 mile limit, which now cannot legally exist.

    Japan can do the same in Korean waters. Korea and Japan will both be legally robbed of natural resources, unless they defend those resources with weapons. Japan is mongering WWIII without fear, because it has the backing of the US.

    The same problem exists for Viet Nam and Malasia who filed a joint application which was halted by an objection from the Phillipines, also backed by the US. Yet the Phillipines does not file it's own application so that a discussion and compromise can be negotiated.
    Last edited by ouwen; 07-12-2013 at 01:59 PM.

  3. #113

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,123

    most of the above is not relevant to Phils. the last para is just factually wrong, phils is submitting its case as is mentioned in the link. china does not want to go to the UN because no sane person would agree with their claim and they know that


  4. #114
    ouwen
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    most of the above is not relevant to Phils. the last para is just factually wrong, phils is submitting its case as is mentioned in the link. china does not want to go to the UN because no sane person would agree with their claim and they know that

    Wonderful. The lines between Malasia, Viet Nam and the Phils is now being settled peacefully.

    Do you have a link to the filing by the phils so that I can follow the process?

    China's 2009 filing.......... http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new...on_english.pdf

    China's 2012 filing............http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new...cs_63_2012.pdf

  5. #115

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    4,164

    First hit on Google is this: http://www.interaksyon.com/article/5...ed-territories

    All over the news in Asia at the time.


  6. #116
    ouwen
    Quote Originally Posted by jaykay:
    First hit on Google is this: http://www.interaksyon.com/article/5...ed-territories

    All over the news in Asia at the time.
    That's not the Viet Nam / Malasia / Phils limits we were discussing.

    But this is even more interesting, and very confusing. The documents I read say that there is no legal process or tribunal. They only said that any objection to another country's claim simply halts consideration of that claim, and no line of maritime delimitation can be drawn.

    This is confusing and will take a lot more research. I hope some of you will keep the thread going in this direction, and we can gain some understanding of what the hell is going on here

    it's a bit much for me to keep up on, especially from here in the US where everyone seems oblivious to these world shaking events.

    Thanks for coming into the discussion JayKay

  7. #117

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,123

    As far as I can see those submissions have nothing to do with phils. the discussion was about the dispute between china and phils. as far as I am aware phils has notified the UN it will be filing a case in March and china has refused to do so but has sent its aircraft carrier. china has also started drilling and has blocked off access to the shoal. Which side is going through the diplomatic channels and which is trying to provoke military action. as a peace lover I am sure you will condemn chinas actions


  8. #118

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    Your point seems confused. Some posts you state that the 'nationalisation' of some the islands changed the status quo and caused offence while others you say it doesn't matter.

    Some of the islands were already owned by the government and that was not 'more' offensive (no protest by the CCP) so aligning the ownership was surely not really a radical change of the status quo and the purchase by the central government was seen as a positive step towards minimising the potential of issues by the international community with the exception of China.


    Japan does not have the right to enforce the way China is seen by the international community. The way the CCP reacts publicly to very minor regional changes is in the control of the CCP and the CCP does a very good jobs of making sure the Chinese public and the world know what they believe people should think (unfortunately the Chinese public are not able to have free and easy access to information to allow a more balanced view).
    I meant that it doesn't matter what you or I think, what matters is what Beijing thinks is is tantamount to changing the status quo. We can all say whether move X or Y justifies China's action or not, but ultimately, those are moot points. It may not seem like a radical change to us, but for Beijing, with their nationalism and opaque decision-making, it may very well be. However strange it may seem to us, for them and their world view, that nationalization by Japan may be the straw that broke the camel's back, so-to-speak. If Beijing thinks nationalization, regardless of how little it actually changed things on the ground, does changes the status quo for them, then that is what matters.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 08-12-2013 at 07:22 PM.

  9. #119

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    23,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    I meant that it doesn't matter what you or I think, what matters is what Beijing thinks is is tantamount to changing the status quo.
    The status quo was going to be changed, regardless of what you, the Chinese, the Japanese or the aliens from outer space thought of it. Shintaro Ishihara was pushing on with plans to buy these islands and had plans to station Japanese on them, as well as build on them.

    The national government took the least worst option of nullifying this threat. What would enrage the Chinese more:

    (a) buy the islands and build harbour facilities and station Japanese citizens on them
    (b) buy the islands and do nothing

    Before all this kicked off, seems you don't realise that two of the islands were already owned by the Japanese government and the other three were rented from their private owners by the Japanese government.

    This article is fairly balanced:

    http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_...AJ201209050013

    Try to understand the circumstances before you spout off as you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

  10. #120

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,123

    Ouwen I am intrigued by your character:

    - you are a peace activist who hates the american govt but enrolled in the military

    - an anarchist who can not say a bad word about the chinese govt

    - a genius whose knowledge of biology seems to be at the level of the ancient greeks

    - someone who has held important positions in the military and the private sector requiring critical thinking but accepts a romantic view of the celts

    - a peace activist who switches in a second to aggresion (no one insulted your wife)

    We are all complex but you more than most


Reply
Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... LastLast