offline
- Pridružio: 19 Jun 2014
- Poruke: 1402
|
Citat:
In 1947, after taking control of both Paracel and Spratly Islands, the Chinese government drew what was then an eleven-dash line to justify its claims in the South China Sea. However, this was not the first time such a line was drawn to indicate Chinese ownership in the South China Sea.
According to Nine-Dash Line - Wikipedia, this “1947 map, titled "Map of South China Sea Islands," originated from an earlier one titled "Map of Chinese Islands in the South China Sea" (Zhongguo nanhai daoyu tu) published by the Republic of China's Land and Water Maps Inspection Committee in 1935”.
This was, of course, a direct challenge to the French occupation of both the Paracel and Spratly Islands in 1933, as discussed earlier.
Again, there is no record of any protests from either Vietnam or Philippines at that time that I was able to find.
That the Chinese government has sovereignty over both Paracel and Spratly Islands was ACCEPTED worldwide until 1951.
This is an important point, especially as it relates to the applicability of UNCLOS to the issue of Chinese sovereignty over these island archipelagos. I shall discuss this issue later on in this post.
So what happened in 1951?
C) 1951- 2013
In 1949, People’s Republic of China (PRC) was established on mainland China and the previous government, Republic of China, moved to Taiwan. By 1951, Korean War had started a year earlier, and McCarthyism - Wikipedia (1947-1956) had firmly taken root in United States.
While the world recognized Chinese sovereignty over both Paracel and Spratly Islands since after WWII, by 1951 however, with Korean War waging, cold war mentality also took root in United States. By then, US has been recognized as the world’s superpower and it decided to do what only a superpower can – “Might makes Right”.
Acting as if Potsdam Declaration never existed as the authoritative document defining the terms of Japanese surrender, US decided to convey the so-called “San Francisco Conference of 1951”, euphemistically called “Peace Treaty with Japan”.
Which country was not invited? You guessed it. The Chinese!
Canadian author/professor, Kimie Hara, detailed the event in her book “Cold War Frontiers in the Asia-Pacific – Divided territories in the San Francisco System”.
The San Francisco system, she wrote “was a Cold War confrontation system, fully reflecting the strategic interests of the Treaty drafters, especially the USA”. It was “no more than a signing ceremony among the countries chosen and invited by the USA as a host”. Additionally, the South China Sea “problems were intentionally created or left unresolved to protect US strategic interests, or to avoid unnecessary conflicts among the Western Allies”.
[red]With the San Francisco System, she wrote “post-war Asia-Pacific took a different path from that originally planned”.[/red]
It was a System done without Chinese participation and China refused to recognize its legitimacy.
The San Francisco Treaty was ratified in April, 1952. A few months later, in April, 1952, Treaty of Taipei - Wikipedia was signed between Japan and Taiwan.
“Under pressure from the United States, Japan signed a separate peace treaty with the Republic of China to bring the war between the two states to a formal end with a victory for the ROC”.
In it, Japan renounced all rights to Spratly and Paracel Islands, among others.
However, “The Treaty of Taipei was abrogated unilaterally by the Japanese government on Sept. 29, 1972”
From the Chinese perspective, the presumption that Japan had anything to renounce at the time was, of course, nothing more than a pointless presumption!
“Under pressure from the United States” will not work with China. China is a sovereign state, not a vassal state!
As far as China is concerned, Potsdam Agreement was all that was, and is, relevant!
It will be relevant until she also decides it to be irrelevant!
D) 2013-Current
In November 2013, China introduced its Air Defense Identification Zone to protect her claims in South China Sea. U.S. and its allies accused China of “violating status quo”.
That would be correct. The status quo then existing was done without Chinese participation and in violation of an international treaty in which China participated. It is not something that China is obligated to comply with.
Any change to that original treaty, Potsdam Declaration, requires her consent. That was the meaning of the word “we” in the treaty, as we discussed above.
Now let us discuss specific claims from the Philippines and Vietnam.
E) Philippines’ Claim
The reason that U. S. did not return the disputed islands to the Philippines when it left as Philippines’ colonial master in 1947 was very simple: US was involved in various treaties that clearly delineated the boundaries of the Philippines and, the disputed islands were not within those boundaries.
This article from a Philippines journalist made the case for China: The forgotten Treaty of Paris
Essentially, she made the following points:
1) In three treaties (Treaty of Paris of 1898, Treaty of Washington of 1900, and Convention between U. S. and Britain of 1930), the boundaries of the Philippines were deemed to lie east of East Meridian 118. All the disputed islands, including Scarborough Shoal, lie east of its boundaries. This is really that simple.
2) That definition of the boundaries was incorporated into the Philippines’ 1935 Constitution.
The following map shows the Treaty Boundaries of the Philippines, as accepted internationally in 1946.
3) It was later unilaterally “modified”, in 1973, as she stated “The problem began when the 1973 Constitution during Marcos time deleted the boundaries of Philippine national territory defined in the 1935 Constitution to comply with the Treaty of Paris.”
4) Regarding the US role in any potential future conflict, she wrote: “Will the US to come to the aid of the Philippines under the mutual defense treaty if Scarborough Shoal is occupied by a foreign power? The US said it does not apply in a South China Sea conflict as the Spratlys are not part of the “metropolitan territory” of the Philippines”
Why do the Philippines continue to shout? Under U. S.’s “anyone but China in South China Sea” policy, US continues to publicly support Philippines.
What did Philippines do after “modifying” its Constitution to get Scarborough Shoal and other previously non-Philippine islands?
It claimed Terra Nullis, feigning ignorance of Chinese sovereignty over these islands (a requirement under Terra Nullis claim), much the same way Abe feigned ignorance of Potsdam Declaration, as discussed before.
F) Vietnam’s Claim
As I discussed before, even as neither Vietnam nor the Philippines showed any interests in Paracel or Spratly island archipelagos during their colonial times, they nevertheless claimed “historical” ownership nowadays when it is convenient for them to do so.
However, the current Vietnamese regime, North Vietnam (which came to being in 1954), actually acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over these islands:
1) According to Battle of the Paracel Islands - Wikipedia “In 1956 North Vietnam formally accepted that the Paracel and Spratly islands were historically Chinese”.
2) On p 45 of the Book “China’s War with Vietnam, 1979: Issues, Decisions, and Implications”, it is written “according to Vietnamese data, the Xisha Islands (Paracel) and Nansha Islands (Spratly) are historically part of Chinese territory” spoken in June 1956 by Vietnamese Vice Foreign Minister Ung Van Khien to Li Zhimin, Charge d’Affaires of Chinese Embassy in Vietnam.
3)
Source: Spratly Islands dispute - Wikipedia
Translation of the first part of the document from Spratly Islands dispute - Wikipedia
“Dear Comrade Prime Minister,
We solemnly inform you that the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam acknowledges and supports the declaration dated September 4th, 1958 by the Government of the People's Republic of China regarding the decision on the breadth of China's territorial sea”.
The Declaration dated September 4th, 1958 mentioned in this written document referred to the Chinese “Declaration on Territorial Waters” which specifically stated that the Paracel (Xisha) and Spratly (Nansha)_ islands were Chinese territories. (p 274 of the book by Bruce Elleman et al “Beijing’s Powers and China’s Borders”). The Chinese spokesperson was its then premier Zhou Enlai, the “Comrade Prime Minister” referred to in the Vietnamese letter.
Yet, it was Vietnam which is the most aggressive in its behavior in the South China Sea!
G) China showing “Great Restraint”
According to this article, Who Is the Biggest Aggressor in the South China Sea? , U. S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, David Shear, said this to Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2015: “Vietnam has 48 outposts; the Philippines, 8; China, 8; Malaysia, 5, and Taiwan, 1” and that “All of these same claimants have also engaged in construction activity of differing scope and degree. The types of outpost upgrades vary across claimants but broadly are comprised of land reclamation, building construction and extension, and defense emplacements. Between 2009 and 2014, Vietnam was the most active claimant in terms of both outpost upgrades and land reclamation, reclaiming approximately 60 acres. All territorial claimants, with the exception of China and Brunei, have also already built airstrips of varying sizes and functionality on disputed features in the Spratlys.”
The same article concluded that “Shear specifically said that between 2009 and 2014, Vietnam had been the most active. This helps us understand what Chinese military leaders mean when they say China has shown “great restraint.”
So what exactly is U. S. accusing China doing in South China Sea? Listen to former Vice President, Joe Biden, South China Morning Post Web App “(reclamation) which other countries are doing, but not nearly on the massive scale the Chinese are doing”!
Yes. China’s sin was for doing reclamation “massively”! That was it! Never mind that its physical size and its population size are both larger than any of its challenges!
By 2015, China was already a late-comer in South China Sea dispute and was just trying to catch up, as others, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, already had occupied more islands (which presumably are of better quality) and had already built airstrips. Yet in U. S. mass media, you only hear of Chinese “aggression” and only Chinese building “airstrips” so it can bully others!
H) Nine-Dash Line and UNCLOS
I like to finish by discussing, birefly, UNCLOS and the nine-dash line that China drew in 1947.
The United Nation Convention of Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) did not come into existence until 1994, approximately 110 years after China formally protested the incorporation of these islands by France, which actually recognized Chinese Qing Dynasty’s sovereignty over them, as discussed previously.
International laws generally do not apply retroactively to events that predated their own existence. If they did, then US would be in much greater trouble than China. People of Haiwaii, Guam, Diego Garcia, California, its occupied islands in the Pacific etc., and even the native North Americans will want their land back lost due to aggression and brutality. And talk about human rights violations! American natives and African American can’t wait for that to happen!
It also important to know that China’s position is not inflexible. She is open to negotiation with her neighboring countries. Contrary to reports in western media, her position with regards to the dotted-line and UNESCO is also flexible.
In 2014, Singapore prime minister was asked a leading question by a reporter from VOA: “…. And we know that China has declared that international law does not apply here (UNESCO law). So how do you look at the tension?”
His answer: “I don’t think China has quite said that international law does not apply to this. I think what they have said is that they have claims which existed long before international law came into existence, and these have to be given due weight, because international law does not go back to things which preceded it”.
Citat:
Let me start with Japan. After WWII, when Japan surrendered. Potsdam Declaration - Wikipedia also known as the Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender, contains the following statement: “ the "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine," as had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943”. This document was signed with Chinese participation. That is the “we” in the sentence.
Please note that Japan was not allowed to have Okinawa, on which there has been years of protest against US military bases. Neither was Japan allowed to occupy the island “in dispute” with China. US recognized this fact from the end of WWII until 1951, when it convened the so-call “San Francisco Conference of 1951” by specifically excluding China. In it, US made unilateral arrangement that would deny Chinese ownership of the islands that it previously recognized as belonging to China right after WWII and put them all “in dispute”.
These include island “in dispute: with Japan, Philippines, Vietnam and all others.
To this day, Japan do not own the island “in dispute” with China. America took over its “administrative” duty at San Francisco Conference from China and promised to relay it to UN. It never did. US kept the “administrative” rights until 1971 and then gave to Japan, at the opposition of China. When US signed defense agreement with Japan, the document had to be modified to cover “administrative” regions, instead of just the sovereign areas like all the other defense treaties it signed with other countries.
Ukratko... istorijski Kina ima suverenitet nad svim tim ostrvima, ali su amerikanci posle drugog svetskog rata i pobede komunizma u Kini, na silu dodelili ta ostrva drugim drzavama.
|
