
China’s claim to the Spratly Islands emerged in first half of the 20th century - nradov
http://cimsec.org/chinas-claim-spratly-islands-just-mistake/36474
======
dang
All: recent threads on Chinese topics have descended into nationalistic
flamewar. That's about the worst thing you can do on Hacker News, and we ban
accounts that do it, so please don't do it or anything like it, regardless of
which view you favor.

Hacker News is a large community with people on all sides of all issues in all
regions. Assume good faith, and check your matches, lighters, and brass
knuckles at the door.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
IkmoIkmo
He takes a wonderfully naive approach for someone who's historically
knowledgeable. I'm sure he knows why and how territorial claims are made and
how countries use and abuse historical data, archives, archeology, myths,
narratives and make inflated claims from otherwise trivial facts (e.g. this
document which has a stamp of a representative of the King on this trade
document exchanging camels for figs shows the kingdom had economic
representation in the region which under the cultural norms at the time was
viewed as de facto political rule, traced all the way to now means the
republic that succeeded the kingdom still has sovereignty here.)

None of these are mistakes, they're political claims.

The Aegean dispute is quite an interesting case study for anyone who wants to
dive into how this all works. Due to the many islands in combination with
international law (UNCLOS) it ends up screwing over Turkey massively, which
unsurprisingly hasn't signed. In the south china sea this isn't as big a deal,
but still important due to shipping, rare minerals, fishing rights etc.

~~~
John_KZ
Turkey owns 4 islands in the Aegean. Greece has over 6,000 in total. I don't
see where you get the "screwing over" part. Is it because you think Turkey
should have more territories than it does today?

Turkey should have signed UNCLOS a long time ago. 168 countries have. The only
reason they postpone it is to maintain claims over Greece. Signing UNCLOS
would also mean that their warships can no longer venture near Athens while
claiming to be on international waters. And of course they'd finally have to
stop pretending that the Greek-Cypriot EEZ connection doesn't exist.

I can see why Turkey and China are abusing historical data, archives,
archeology, myths etc, just like you said, but I can't help but notice that
they don't have any valid claims, and the moral thing to do (if there is one)
would most likely be to drop those claims.

~~~
IkmoIkmo
When I say screwing over, I don't mean that as a value judgement on Greece's
position. Greece's position makes sense, international law is on their side as
is history. I mean that it objectively is a bad deal for Turkey, I'm sure you
agree with that.

i.e. if anything north of Antalya has no more connection to the Mediterranean
or Atlantic Ocean (i.e. access to the sea) without going through Greek waters,
that's an issue for Turkey. Greece already 'owns' about 50% of the Aegean,
12nm would extend that past 70%.

International law is the area of law least concerned with morality. Everyone
disagrees but that's how it works because there's no such thing as a world
court, world government, world police force. Just some semblance of it in our
institutions that make a good effort but where political power is still key.
Greece doesn't come close to Turkey's geopolitical power and has no explicit
support from any major powers on this issue. That's why it hasn't changed from
6nm despite the law.

I would disagree by the way that they don't have valid claims. Perhaps under
strict application of international law (which doesn't really exist) they'd
lose. But they also make non-legal claims to equity and make claims about
genuine concerns of the so called greek lake, which make quite a lot of sense.

~~~
thirduncle
_I mean that it objectively is a bad deal for Turkey, I 'm sure you agree with
that._

Let's just assume that it is.

But you'd have to agree also that's hard to have much sympathy for Turkey as
the victimized party in the region. Or to repurpose a quote from _Apocalypse
Now_ :

"What do you call it when the bully accuses the bully?"

------
hugh4life
China's claims are weak, but the United States Government's complete inability
to prioritize has hurt their ability to confront China. That being said, China
is alienating it's neighbors and they will depend on the USG to guarantee
freedom of navigation.

~~~
jessaustin
Most areas in the world would be improved by a reduction in USA interference,
just as you describe having happened in the South China Sea. Our omnipresent
bullying makes it too easy for potential rivals as well as potential allies.
Without us as a foil they take more care in finding their own way. [EDIT: or,
to say it less self-centered fashion, possibilities emerge when they can
devote fewer resources to handling interference from afar].

~~~
Nomentatus
The only example I cant think of immediately, Iran, is not so much better off,
nor its people.

~~~
jessaustin
Everyone in Libya was better off before USA and some random Europeans
interfered there.

~~~
Nomentatus
There's been a lot of chaos, but it started before the U.S. intervened, as I
remember. The U.S. and European footprint has been very light - maybe, as in
Syria, way too light to create order.

------
temp-dude-87844
The research is interesting, and shows that a surprising amount of complexity
around the claims was present for more than a hundred years. Legally, the 2016
arbitration was final and non-appealable, so absent some large shift in
international jurisprudence, the letter of the law says one thing, yet the
situation of the ground is different.

There's little reason the two will drift into alignment in the future, because
of the reasons the Spratlys are sought in the first place: a prime spot for
force projection, proximity to global shipping lanes, and credible rumours of
hydrocarbon reserves, in descending order.

------
arglebarnacle
This is a fascinating and illuminating piece of history, but I have a hard
time believing that these cartographic mistakes are the reason for China's
posture in the South China Sea.

The first part of the article mentions the strategic and economic resources in
the region. Do we think that China would be minding its own business if these
mistakes had not been made? It seems more likely that we would simply be left
with the "ancient and historical claim[s] to the reefs and rocks in the South
China Sea" without the attendant maps from the early 20th century.

~~~
repsilat
> _I have a hard time believing that these cartographic mistakes are the
> reason for China 's posture in the South China Sea._

Sure, these aren't China's motivation, but they are China's argument for the
legitimacy of their claims. To the extent this research can be said to argue
for a political outcome, it is less about dissuading China from its claims and
more about reducing those claims from "legitimate" to simply "effective".
(Which is more than enough for the Chinese, even if they accepted the research
at face value -- which they won't.)

~~~
forapurpose
Needless to say, they will find a reason for what they want to do. I'd guess
they can find an historical reason because they are not the first Chinese
regime to desire to control the territories around them.

No doubt, nearly every piece of real estate in the world has been controlled
by multiple governmental parties at some point in history, and can thus be
contested. Perhaps Mexico will want Texas back? But what about the Native
Americans in the area? Maybe the French will contest that the Louisiana
Purchase was illegitimate on a technicality? How about identifying all the
potential claimants to the land in Israel - we can add religious claims to the
standard legal and geopolitical claims. Claims are noise, omnipresent for
everything, not signal of much significance.

On the other hand, we want the debate to stay in the legal realm. I was just
reading that rule of law for international disputes dates back only to the
early to mid-twentieth century (depending on how you date it). Before then,
war was the 'legal' way to resolve it; it wasn't outlawed effectively until
the UN was formed right after WWII.

------
Nomentatus
Crazy as it sounds, Western nations colonized the island of Taiwan, which had
a native population, China didn't - it wasn't interested. But should China's
lack of appetite for colonization back then be penalized?

Rather than rewriting history now, I think China would do far better to
blatantly object to any rules defining sea territories based on what small
islands the nations who were eager to colonize managed to seize, back when;
and instead argue that taking the population densities in the area is
reasonable when divying up the sea. That's their real point, and it's a pretty
good one.

The trouble with inventing claims and shoving military forces into places
you'd like to have now, is that there's no end to it. It's a promise of
eternal war. Eternal irredentism and revanchism. Bound to make 'em unpopular.
China could make a legitimate argument, in my view, but even now they aren't
bothering to do that. Pity.

I'd rather China invited other nations to discuss creating a law of the sea
that's more reasonable than "small island theory" that comes down to us from
colonial times.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
> That's their real point, and it's a pretty good one.

I don’t think that is china’s point at all. China also defines national waters
with a much larger buffer than most other countries, including the USA.

~~~
Nomentatus
It's not their stated point, but if there's another rationalization, I can't
imagine it. They feel their large population entitles them to more - I don't
think they're wrong about that.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Well, they think they should have more than their neighbors if the nine dashed
line is any indication (we don't believe in 100 km, except for other countries
so...). Note that those countries in the SCS are much more densely populated
than China, and double especially where the conflicts occur (they have
millions and millions of people living on the line, china has like a garrison
on small artificially buffed islands).

If they do claim that as a rationalization, the cognitive dissonance to
dismiss the hypocrisy must be amazing. However, I've never heard them make
such a rationalization before, and I don't think they have.

~~~
Nomentatus
Dense, not nec huge populations -but you're right re Indonesia, it has a huge
population. But isn't much affected.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Phillipines, Vietnam, Malaysia are all very populated and rather dense.

~~~
Nomentatus
None of these are even in the top ten for population. So they're all dwarfed
by China. [http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-
by-...](http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Philippines has 100 million people. Vietnam has 90 million people. Malaysia
has 30 millions. None of these are big countries area wise, they are all
located very close to the SCS, much closer than Hainan’s 8 million.

~~~
Nomentatus
In other words, the Philippines has less than 10 per cent of China's
population. Dwarfed. This doesn't contradict them not even being in the top
ten.

re SCS, I haven't mentioned or endorsed any precise boundary.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
The population of all these countries is pretty much in the vicinity of seas
disputed. The population of China is pretty much not (Hainan is one of the
least populated provinces).

~~~
Nomentatus
Which is consistent both with my proposal, (considering population), and would
allow create boundaries very different from the little islands rules - so you
seem to be "agreeing with vehemence" here, not disagreeing.

------
forkLding
Lets be honest here, all the countries fighting for these islands will use an
origin myth but historicalities is not the real reason for the fight, these
islands have likely never been populated by humans because they're too small,
they're arguing for shipping and natural resources reasons and historicalities
is just part of the bs added.

~~~
Nomentatus
Exactly; it's an error (a deliberate error, now what's the word for that,
again?) not a mistake.

Reminds me of a very old grammar joke, husband interrupts wife in bed with
another. Wife: "You startled me." Husband: "No dear, I am startled. You were
surprised."

------
mike00632
I don't think anyone believes that these disputes are based on legitimate land
claims.

------
hillions
This is a quite interesting story. Yet the piece one forgot to mention is that
the government of Republic of China was founded in 1912, after the intense and
long warfare. Meaning at most, the author's evidence could prove that during
the times somewhat around 1912-1927. It wasn't on the government's official
records, while they're trying to define its territory.

It does not affect evidence dated back before.

On the other hand, similar arguments could effectively be found for other
countries who also land the claims. As their claims were only made more
recently, as well as their governments, all after a long time of western
colonization.

Different claims made by different countries must all be examined. Put one in
the spotlight without examining others could only raise suspicions.

~~~
forapurpose
> the government of Republic of China was founded in 1912

The Republic of China is the official name of Taiwan; mainland China is The
People's Republic of China.

The last Imperial dynasty, the Qing, usually is dated to have ended in 1911.
There was a period of intermittent civil war and various claims to government
until the Communists defeated the Nationalists in 1949.

1949 is usually given as the date of the founding of the current Chinese
state. (The Nationalists fled to Taiwan, which became the Republic of China.)

------
SZJX
Does it really mean anything? I'm actually a bit surprised that the claim
existed as far back as 100 years ago. The US had absolutely nothing to claim
about Hawaii whatsoever, yet just marched in, drove out the original king and
occupied the place.

Surely any "historical facts" have no importance whatsoever in geopolitical
maneuvers.

------
emmelaich
Relatedly, the whole
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea)
is complex and prone to corruption.

It's hell.

------
ngcc_hk
The discussion is much more civilised compared with those in chinese language.

The current power in china actually is not very consistent in maintaining its
territories. If history based on Qing empire, the territorial claims would be
very different.

It is all political.

For this area strangely even I studied politics even aware of it. Unlike a
little island japan and china claiming sovereignty and Taiwan, it is really
not much mentioned until lately.

Hence, it is more about another empire raising up, not about claims.

As regards the style of this empire, good luck you have a place where only its
IT firm can do business and others including Apple has to hand over their
databases.

IT people should concern, even if it is political. Too much at stack. If the
chinese norm becomes the internet standard (as its communist chief tried in
internet conference), you will be all affected.

------
justinzollars
Dang, Its going to be really tough to ignore China. Especially on Hacker news.

I've recently read a book The China Dream: Great Power Thinking and Strategic
Posture in the Post-American Era by the Chinese general Liu Mingfu and the
country is by admission not a proponent of Human rights (but rather "Peace"
and "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics")

Last year China VC funding grew tremendously [1]. China will surpass the US
GDP in 15-20 years [2] or so (if not less), and dealing with China is
difficult in the technology industry. Google, Facebook, the YC backed Airbnb
[3], Uber and many more US companies have tried to enter the market with
difficulty.

I understand nationalism is a problem especially in the Trump era but this
issue will be with us for the foreseeable future and the tech community has a
special responsibility to ensure the universal values of Human Rights are
defended.

[1]
[https://www.eastwestbank.com/ReachFurther/News/Article/China...](https://www.eastwestbank.com/ReachFurther/News/Article/China-
s-Red-Hot-Venture-Capital-Tech-Scene) [2]
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-26/china-
to-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-26/china-to-overtake-
u-s-economy-by-2032-as-asian-might-builds) [3]
[http://www.businessinsider.com/three-challenges-facing-
airbn...](http://www.businessinsider.com/three-challenges-facing-airbnb-in-
china-2015-8)

~~~
dang
You can avoid flamewars without ignoring China.

------
IncRnd
"China’s Claim to the Spratly Islands Is Just a Mistake"

Actually, China's claim is political not historical.

------
foodislove
In the board game Warhammer there is the tale of the Dwarves strongholds. They
forever remembered grudges. Even over the course of time, when the nature of
the grudge was forgotten, they still held on to the ill will. This article is
well reasoned, researched, and makes sense to a Chinese speaker. However, this
will be dismissed like the UN Tribunal simply because the result contradicts
the official narrative promoted by China.

There is simply too much nationalism and national pride locked up with the
whole South China Sea and Taiwan that no amount of logic and truth can change
how it is perceived in China.

The South China Sea dispute has nothing to facts like these, and all about
geopolitics and power within China. Like with the Austria pre-ww2, if the
Chinese were to invade and conquer Taiwan and control the entire SCS, they'll
magically find other "distractions" and "conflicts" to distract people away
from their own misrule and corruption.

With Putin's Russia and the CCP, there must always be enemies (both internal
and external). If they don't exist, you create one (think FalunGong)

~~~
petermcneeley
"War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the
ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common
interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one
another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they
are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling
group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or
prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact."
-1984

~~~
make3
in 1984, war is strictly a distraction and an economic sinkhole to keep the
masses occupied.

in China, it's likely about not setting precedent for sub states seceding,
making the country less powerful because smaller, as well as making the
"communist" setup look weaker/optional. Are these the same as 1984? I don't
know.

~~~
corv
What is war in the contemporary USA?

~~~
Yetanfou
A way to keep a large industry fed, providing jobs which otherwise would be
outsourced to low-wage countries. The same industry provides the politicians
who get to decide over how public funds are to be spent with lucrative
positions, enticing them to keep said industry on their side. People often hop
from the industry into politics and vice-versa, a practice known as the
revolving door between politics and industry.

In many ways this can be compared to the purpose of war in the feudal middle
ages where land always needed to be conquered to be given as fiefs to up-and-
coming nobility so that nobility would support the current king in his strive
to remain in power. Things change but the basic tenet stays the same: those in
power want to remain there and will use the means at their disposition to do
so.

------
crazy_monkey
The claims will be, at worst, useful bargaining chips in future negotiations.
There's no point in forcing them to drop them.

------
alskfhskd
Good ol dang to the rescue. Never says a single word about subtle slandering
of conservatives, white males, christians or Republicans; but, since Chinese
are non-white, he leaps to defense of alternate points of view on HN. Ask
yourselves why each of you find disagreeable topics only acceptable in these
cases.

~~~
dang
When I say 'regardless' I do mean it:
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20regardless&sort=byDa...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20regardless&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0).

It always feels like moderation is against you. This is the Hostile Media
Effect:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect)

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22hostile%20media%20effect%22...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22hostile%20media%20effect%22&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0).

