Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#81

Post by akvadrako »

dirtyid wrote: post #74
akvadrako wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think your case is very good. I read through that paper, which is not very much about the treaties, but I also didn't find any compelling arguments that the treaties say more than below. What I gather they say is Japan gives up rights to the SCS and territories they siezed from China are returned to China (RPC, ROC, whatever). However it doesn't say the Spratlys and the Paracels are returned to China, for exa…

It's not my case. It's summary of ROC/PRC argument, which predates others and had garnered major international support in a time when these disputes had no geopolitical relevance. Now it does, so the the ambiguities in language gets re-prosecuted, and is exactly what everyone nitpicks over. China thinks it sufficiently transfers islands over to Chinese sovereignty, Philippines doesn't, hence the dispute. There's also…

> It's not my case. It's summary of ROC/PRC argument, which predates others and had garnered major international support in a time when these disputes had no geopolitical relevance.

This is what I don't agree with. It seems you were referring to those treaties to show that the world accepted China's argument. But I don't see the evidence of that; at most they were just non-committal.

Of course it matters how good their argument is – if it was stronger than enough countries would be interested in maintaining stable international order to back them up.

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#82

Post by petre »

yorwba wrote: post #32
tim333 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's unrealistic about the above? Seems pretty accurate to me.

What about all the comments pointing out that other countries are taking concrete steps and treating Chinese fishing vessels in the same way? The whole premise of the "analysis" is mistaken.

For China is business as usual harassing other fishermen legally operating inside the claimed nine dash line waters, claims which were invalidated by an international court. Other nations are defending their EEZ and have every right to chase them out or sink them.

I wish Japan would extend its navy and actively deter China. Too bad Mr. Abe had to resign his post serving as PM, he wanted to revisit article 9 of Japan's constitution. An reiterpretation was made allowing Japan to exercise collective self defense.

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#83

Post by teleforce »

DarthGhandi wrote: post #58
hvdfhbj wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but legitimate governments such as the be Philippines and Malaysia are also the subject of the CCP's imperial claims.

The Malaysian government is very far from legitimate. It's run by the party who got dramatically voted out at the last election. Even their supporters call it a "backdoor" government. The former PM who stole billions and was found guilty of all charges was sentenced to 12 years in prison yet still sits in Parliament while getting friendly media interviews, he gave a speech on the budget just the other day representin…

Not sure why you are attacking and trolling all the claimants to the SCS by ad hominem most of the governments involved except China?

Go and critically read history books/articles/etc my friend, not only by the colonial regimes namely Spain, British, Dutch and France that have plundered the countries that you have just mentioned, and what names these areas are collectively called (yes they have their names) few centuries back before the dark colonial era started.

After that you probably know to whom the oil and fish belongs since these people have been fishing there for centuries. Truth and facts really matter but not your random opinions.

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#84

Post by yorwba »

petre wrote: post #82
yorwba wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about all the comments pointing out that other countries are taking concrete steps and treating Chinese fishing vessels in the same way? The whole premise of the "analysis" is mistaken.

For China is business as usual harassing other fishermen legally operating inside the claimed nine dash line waters, claims which were invalidated by an international court. Other nations are defending their EEZ and have every right to chase them out or sink them. I wish Japan would extend its navy and actively deter China. Too bad Mr. Abe had to resign his post serving as PM, he wanted to revisit article 9 of Japan'…

> For China is business as usual harassing other fishermen legally operating inside the claimed nine dash line waters, claims which were invalidated by an international court. Other nations are defending their EEZ and have every right to chase them out or sink them.

The nine-dash line claims were invalidated on the grounds that controlling small islands without permanent settlement doesn't extend the EEZ, so the EEZ is limited to 200 nautical miles from the coastline. But there's a lot within 200 nmi from the Chinese coast, including the Paracels, where those Vietnamese fishermen in the article were attacked by the Chinese coast guard. Simply defending their EEZ, as they have every right to do. Except the Paracels are also within 200 nmi of the Vietnamese coast, so the maritime boundary is up for negotiation. Vietnam and China have a treaty delineating the boundary in the Gulf of Tonkin, but otherwise it's still unspecified.

As for Japan, they're on the other side of Taiwan, so their EEZ doesn't extend nearly far enough to make any claims in the South China Sea.

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#85

Post by throwaway69123 »

teleforce wrote: post #83
DarthGhandi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Malaysian government is very far from legitimate. It's run by the party who got dramatically voted out at the last election. Even their supporters call it a "backdoor" government. The former PM who stole billions and was found guilty of all charges was sentenced to 12 years in prison yet still sits in Parliament while getting friendly media interviews, he gave a speech on the budget just the other day representin…

Not sure why you are attacking and trolling all the claimants to the SCS by ad hominem most of the governments involved except China? Go and critically read history books/articles/etc my friend, not only by the colonial regimes namely Spain, British, Dutch and France that have plundered the countries that you have just mentioned, and what names these areas are collectively called (yes they have their names) few centu…

Claims of ownership are often settled by strength and not by history. Alternatives present no real long term viability and are blind optimism.

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#86

Post by petre »

yorwba wrote: post #84
petre wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For China is business as usual harassing other fishermen legally operating inside the claimed nine dash line waters, claims which were invalidated by an international court. Other nations are defending their EEZ and have every right to chase them out or sink them. I wish Japan would extend its navy and actively deter China. Too bad Mr. Abe had to resign his post serving as PM, he wanted to revisit article 9 of Japan'…

> For China is business as usual harassing other fishermen legally operating inside the claimed nine dash line waters, claims which were invalidated by an international court. Other nations are defending their EEZ and have every right to chase them out or sink them. The nine-dash line claims were invalidated on the grounds that controlling small islands without permanent settlement doesn't extend the EEZ, so the EEZ…

Nothing an international arbitration court can't solve. There was a similar legal conflict between Romania and Ukraine regarding the Black Sea plateau which was legally solved by the ICJ a decade ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Delimitation_in_the_B...

Vietnam should bring the case to court and employ some good negotiators. It's the only potentially constructive strategy for them, as outmuscling China is out of the question. If China won't respect the court's decision, the international community can then condemn them, issue tariffs and sanctions and Vietnam could legally fire warning shots and sink their coast guard vessles entering its EEZ.

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#87

Post by knolax »

jruthers wrote: post #7
bArray wrote: post #3

The reason they continue to do this is because they know without doubt other Countries will not treat their fishing vessels in the same way. There is zero consequences for their actions and they have zero reason to change their policy. You might say "the consequence is that they look bad", but they don't, at least not to the people they care about - mainlanders. They own and/or control the news media in mainland Chin…

Good analysis. Realistically, no entity, government or otherwise is taking any concrete steps to say no to China in the south China Sea. Doing "drive bys" is hardly actual action, like say dismantling a Chinese base made in international waters. THAT would be concrete action, and I bet they would get all upset but ultimately do nothing (unless it's too Australia, in which case they'll find some other product to ban).…

> say no to China in the south China Sea.

> people will just say "oh isn't that all China's territory?"

You're already doing that. I feel like I'm witnessing a bizzare form of doublethink seeing people refer to a body of water as the "South China Sea" and then becoming outraged that China would lay claim to said body of water named after them.

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#88

Post by dirtyid »

akvadrako wrote: post #81
dirtyid wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not my case. It's summary of ROC/PRC argument, which predates others and had garnered major international support in a time when these disputes had no geopolitical relevance. Now it does, so the the ambiguities in language gets re-prosecuted, and is exactly what everyone nitpicks over. China thinks it sufficiently transfers islands over to Chinese sovereignty, Philippines doesn't, hence the dispute. There's also…

> It's not my case. It's summary of ROC/PRC argument, which predates others and had garnered major international support in a time when these disputes had no geopolitical relevance. This is what I don't agree with. It seems you were referring to those treaties to show that the world accepted China's argument. But I don't see the evidence of that; at most they were just non-committal. Of course it matters how good the…

To circle back, the original comment was that PRC claims had no legitimate basis in history and law. I pointed out ROC claims were based of both law and history, with enough tacit endorsement (by security members and other claimants) at the time that in terms of consensus, Chinese claims constitute the oldest and strongest among all claimants. Which is true. PRC inherited these claims, and the argument has not changed, only the geopolitical context has. Especially post UNCLOS when ownership granted EEZs and other territorial perks, and now SCS SLOCs and resource claims.

>Of course it matters how good their argument is – if it was stronger than enough countries would be interested in maintaining stable international order to back them up.

No international actor wants a regional Asian hegemony except China, there's no argument strong enough to override such interests. And there's no argument strong enough to form consensus among 6 claimants or US desire for Chinese containment. SCS is simply not a dispute that can be solved legally / multilaterally anymore, unless bilaterally under Chinese terms like original UNCLOS accession conditions. In the meantime, China has the industrial capacity change the conditions on the ground. Probably the most expedient method now, hence arguing over claims is not productive. The claims exist with clear historical documentation, for pretense of Chinese enforcement, that's all that matters.

Post reply on HN