Unlike your other examples these islands have been built in international territories.
You are wrong but it's cool. I won't go on about it.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Unlike your other examples these islands have been built in international territories.
You are wrong but it's cool. I won't go on about it.
Basically Chinese claims on these Islands are as real as Trump's claims of late 18th Century airports....
Yes and no. For some it gives them the only solace available. And if it brings them some peace - who are we to say no?
yes is the short answer.
it's Hunt's department, so he should have a hand in it too.
Perfectly true, but how, as by far the largest nation in the region, is the Chinese wish to control the seas in their area in any way wrong, given the US insistence on controlling virtually the all of the seas worldwide with its military dominance?There are two main sets of “islands” in the South China Sea. (Only a very few are real islands, the vast majority are just reefs, sandbars or rocks). In its northern reaches, the Paracel Islands are disputed between China and Vietnam. In the south the much more extensive Spratly Islands are claimed by China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines. Most of these desolate places have British names, often donated by the ships and crews that mapped them. Richard Spratly was a whaling captain who spotted his island in 1843, HMS Iroquois gave its name to Iroquois Reef during survey work in the 1920s, and so on.
When a Chinese government committee first gave Chinese names to the islands in 1935 all it did was either translate or transliterate the existing British names. In the Paracels, for example, Antelope Reef became Líng yang (the Chinese word for antelope) and in the Spratlys, North Danger Reef became B?i xi?n (Chinese for “north danger”), Spratly Island became Si-ba-la-tuo (the Chinese transliteration of the English name). The Chinese committee simply copied the British maps, errors and all. The names were then revised, twice. Scarborough Shoal, named after a British ship in 1748, was originally transliterated as Si ge ba luo in 1935, renamed Min’zhu Jiao—Democracy Reef by the nationalist Republic of China in 1947 and then given the less politically-sensitive name of Huangyan (Yellow Rock) by the communist People’s Republic of China in 1983.
Today, the Chinese authorities seem completely unaware of this. The standard official defence of China’s “indisputable” sovereignty over the South China Sea begins with the phrase, “the Chinese people were the first to discover and name the Nansha Islands.” In reality, the “Chinese people” just copied the names from the British. Even the word “Nansha” (it means “southern sand”) has moved around on Chinese maps. In 1935 the name was used to describe the area of shallow sea known in English as the “Macclesfield Bank” (yes, after another British ship). In 1947 the name Nansha was moved southwards on Chinese maps to refer to the Spratly Islands.
A full examination of each justification put forward by the Chinese side would run to many pages but suffice to say that there is no archaeological evidence yet found that any Chinese ship travelled across the sea before the 10th century. Up until that point all the trading and exploration was carried out by Malay, Indian and Arab vessels. They may, from time to time, have carried Chinese passengers. The much-discussed voyages of the Chinese “eunuch admirals” including Zheng He, lasted a total of about 30 years, until the 1430s. After that, although traders and fisherfolk plied the seas, the Chinese state never visited deep water again until the nationalist government was given ships by the US and UK at the end of the Second World War.
China’s false memory syndrome - Prospect Magazine
The whole nation has been incorrectly taught that Chinese people discovered and named the South China Sea's islandswww.prospectmagazine.co.uk
Either both are wrong or both are right, to use that quaint old saying, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The Chinese "aircraft carrier" islands are only a military stop gap anyway, since they are way behind on carriers, having only one fully operational. They're busy making that good and it's reckoned they will have six operational by 2030 and more to follow. Their flexibility will render the vulnerable man made islands less useful.
.
Last edited:
Indeed, if it floats their boat it's fine by me, so long as they don't then consider themselves agents to carry out "Gods" will to make their prayers come true.
But for me all religion without any exception is fundamentally evil.
.
Disagree - China has been manufacturing & deploying various long range missile systems - all it needs to do is deploy them on the hard to sink islands. Hence the recent ramp up in escalation of developing hypersonic missile systems otherwise it will be very hard to approach the islands by sea or air...
But the forthcoming aircaft carriers with cruise missiles have the same capability to take war to distant parts, as the USA demonstrates.
We are never going to stop dominant nations militarily controlling their immediately surrounding areas, and I ask again, what right does the USA have to do it in others areas?
If they can, backed by the UN, so can others. That's an absolute.
.
The source of the leak if discovered will be interesting...
His card was marked a long time ago by Trump
"Sir Kim Darroch, the British Ambassador to the US, has “raised concerns” with the White House following Donald Trump’s decision to share a British far-right organisation’s Islamophobic videos. ... "'British people overwhelmingly reject the prejudiced rhetoric of the far right, which seek to divide communities and erode decency, tolerance and respect,' Sir Kim Darroch said" November 2017
Wondered why Javid wasn't invited to participate Trump's state visit
"Communities Secretary Sajid Javid made the strongest attack on Mr Trump so far, posting on his account that Mr Trump had “endorsed the views of a vile, hate-filed racist organisation that hates me and people like me”. "
When Johnson didn't defend him last night he knew the game was up. It's all on Johnson and his leakers.
Yes but they move around. They are not illegal installations against international law. You were wrong.
But it's cool.
Well when China claims impinge on international waters and martime trade routes - esp when they don't own it! and it impacts other east Asian counties in and around the region - and they make unilateral territorial claims for oil and gas exploration .
How Much Trade Transits the South China Sea? | ChinaPower Project
As a vital artery of trade for many of the world’s largest economies, the South China Sea has garnered significant attention. Reports on the South China Sea frequently misrepresent the value of trade that annually transits the waterway. Learn more about trade flows in the region with this...
chinapower.csis.org
The Significance of South China Sea Trade
For many of the world’s largest economies, the South China Sea is an essential maritime crossroads for trade. Over 64 percent of China’s maritime trade transited the waterway in 2016, while nearly 42 of Japan’s maritime trade passed through the South China Sea in the same year. The United States is less reliant on South China Sea, with just over 14 percent of its maritime trade passing through the region.
But China isn't backed by UN / United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) with its islands and territorial claims.
Carriers move around in International waters or friendly countries territorial waters. Maybe East Asian nations should cooperate in resurrecting Project Habakkuk and parking that in the mix...
I tell you what if you can prove it's true I will buy you an e bike of your choice