It was part of China during Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China era of 1912-1949.

Also during the Mongol Empire and its successor Yuan Dynasty, when Mongolian royals ruled Chinese lands. So there's historical justification for Mongolia being part of "Chinese" culture in nature, and yet PRC has broken its own stubborn territorial stance with it just because it was an ally during the Cold War.

edited 23rd May '15 1:10:19 PM by Trivialis

It was only briefly part of the RoC. The PRC claims certain territories in East Asia because they are Chinese (Taiwan) or were no man's land until recently.

Mongolia is neither.

edited 23rd May '15 1:13:48 PM by GrandPrincePaulII

I'm saying that one can argue that Mongolia is just as Chinese.

My point is that leaders of PRC are acting like they're utterly incapable of relinquishing any land that's supposed to be Chinese in some way and yet there's clear precedence to the contrary.

Of course they can, but why should they? The South Chinese Sea is increasingly important to the PRC and they have claimed the Spratlys since 1949.

They've never actually enunciated any kind of detailed historical or legal claim to back the nine-dash line, and they've never drawn an actual border. China's also ratified UNCLOS, which doesn't recognize history as a decisive determinant of sovereignty. Sovereignty must also be excercised, so even if Imperial China once claimed the islands, then their failure to actually exert their rule over them drastically weakens their claim.

A senior Chinese lawyer also privately admitted, if Wikileaks is to be believed, that he was unaware of the specifics of China's claim.

The first still-existing local state who exercised sovereignty in the Spratly region was the Republic of China whose territory and claims were officially inherited by the PRC.

Then I wonder where the Kuril Islands fit into this?

My personal opinion is that Japan lost their right when they stole southern Sakhalin, but that is just my personal opinion.

edited 23rd May '15 1:40:31 PM by TairaMai

What does Sakhalin have to do with it? Russia and Japan agreed to the boundaries there in the Treaty of Portsmouth. It's a done deal.

edited 23rd May '15 1:46:53 PM by Trivialis

The Kuril Islands dispute doesn't involve Sakhalin.

edited 23rd May '15 1:49:44 PM by Greenmantle

It should have been a done deal since 1875.

Paul:

Continuity isn't a requirement for state inheritance; hence why colonial borders or territories can still be valid.

The Republic of China, after the Empire fell, never "exercised sovereignty" over anything in that particular sea (South China Sea), rather just claiming that everything was theirs. Prior to to the creation of that republic, the Kingdom of Spain have claims, by virtue of having the Philippines as a colony. The Kingdom of Spain still exists today (unless of course you don't recognize the current king I guess), and towards the end of the 19th Century relinquished all of their relevant claims (including the Philippines itself) to the United States. With the Philippines becoming a commonwealth in 1935 and eventually independent in 1946, the Republic of the Philippines have the same claims to Spratlys. They then willingly "reduced" their claims to most of Spratlys rather than all of it so that they will be complying with the UNCLOS.

If I may do a small comment here, one shouldn't use the historical past as an argument for maritime claims. While historical claims are interesting, they're not worth anything unless there's actual manpower and technnology (case in point: Portugal, the nation I'm a part of - it failed to secure a lot of the African coast, the maritime areas or land deep within Africa, in spite of being the first major nation to seriously develop the Discoveries, with Spain coming into it a bit later). China has the former, and it's seeking to develop the latter.

Now, the claims aren't worth anything on their own, since, say, Portugal would then use them, if they were actually worth it. We would get a good chunk of the African coast, for starters. Those days are over. And maritime disputes have evolved a lot since then. Today, it's about power. China has a lot of power, but it can't win the game on his own. And they shouldn't use what someone drew in the past in a map as a valid reason.

If China wants to claim them, it will have to use their full economic/trade and military power to secure control of the area. This leads to a certain clash with the US, especially considering the latter's shift to the East and Southeast Asia area.

The problem, now is: how to calm down China and the surrounding nations over it? The latter have some US backing (especially the Philippines - correct me if I'm wrong), and the former have some nationalistic thumping in order to detract from some issues at home that the government doesn't want the folks there to talk about - the same thing kinda happens vice-versa).

This is the question I thought about alongside the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute when I thought about starting this thread.

If you are referring to the riots, than if anything Obama wants us to focus more on them. His justice department has made these types of things a priority. No we are doing this because China is claiming territory from our allies that is not theirs.

I was more referring to the Chinese protests amongst the population that happened 2 years ago, if my memory is not blurred. I've been following this matter over The Diplomat (who have a bit of pro-Japan bias, but are well informed and give fairly decent info on this matter).

While Obama may have said that (and I can see why he would focus on it - it's official foreign policy, after all), I think we can agree that both sides have some diversion and sad discourse going on, regardless of the US allies' claims.

The thing is: how can we bring both sides to the negotiations table to discuss this and calm both sides' concerns? The Chinese officials have either been unwilling, dismissive, engaged in whataboutery or all three, and the US, imo, focus so much on the containment policy that it just ends up pissing China some more.

I've been reading about these disputes, and I feel like most of them, like many other disputes, will remain frozen after the diplomatic heat dies down. Only to be reheated again some years later.

edited 23rd May '15 8:02:44 PM by Quag15

The Chinese actually want negotiations. With a few caveats: that the territorial waters are already theirs, and therefore the negotiations is for "sharing resources" i.e. the ownership is not for dispute; and that it's a bilateral discussion, China only with <country> only, even if the claims of the others mostly overlap too.

Now, imagine if before the Treaty of Versailles to end the First World War, a "requirement" for discussions to even begin is that the losing side make reparation payments already. That's what China is doing.

That's what infuriates me about China. It thinks it has the right to set all the terms, and to make these demands to other countries while offering mere "truce".

It's the same blackmailing that made most of the world and most international organizations concede in recognizing PRC and dropping ROC. It just forced its way into the United Nations and etc. through sheer yelling until it got its way, instead of providing something in return. And same for bilateral relations: "Follow <these conditions> (generally meaning break off relations with Taiwan), and in exchange, you get to normalize relations with us." As if establishing relations alone is inherently valuable for that country, but not for PRC.

edited 23rd May '15 8:59:30 PM by Trivialis

On the other hand, the situation did force the AFP to speed up modernization.

I guess you have not heard of Itu Aba/Taiping Island.

When did Spain officially claim the Spratlys/a part of them?

Spain has claim on most of Spratlys ever since the captain for which it was named had sighted it. The Spanish colonial territory actually extends to just off the coast of Taiwan even, back then it was beyond what UNCLOS stipulates. The rest of the islands also had English and Spanish names (some even had French names) BEFORE the Chinese ever got to name them. And that's an important part, because according to the Chinese "official historical records" no Westerner has actually named those islands prior to them, it's all lies.

Then when the Americans came, the US Navy's Asiatic Fleet even conducts naval exercises in the vicinity.

Wait, looks like that particular island you mentioned was only claimed by ROC because of the vacuum of World War II. France is still in shambles domestically and there's a brewing war in Indochina. The Philippines just got its independence. In other words, ROC exploited the weaknesses of its neighbors.

edited 24th May '15 7:29:52 AM by entropy13

And in other words, China has as much claim to the islands as Miley Cyrus has claim to being a musician....