- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
An escalating series of clashes in the South China Sea between the Philippines and China could draw the U.S., which has a mutual defense treaty with the Philippines, into the conflict.
A 60 Minutes crew got a close look at the tense situation when traveling on a Philippine Coast Guard ship that was rammed by the Chinese Coast Guard.
China has repeatedly rammed Philippine ships and blasted them with water cannons over the last two years. There are ongoing conversations between Washington and Manila about which scenarios would trigger U.S. involvement, Philippine Secretary of National Defense Gilberto Teodoro said in an interview.
“I really don’t know the end state,” Teodoro said. “All I know is that we cannot let them get away with what they’re doing.”
China as “the proverbial schoolyard bully”
China claims sovereignty over almost all of the South China Sea, through which more than $3 trillion in goods flow annually. But in 2016, an international tribunal at the Hague ruled the Philippines has exclusive economic rights in a 200-mile zone that includes the area where the ship with the 60 Minutes team on board got rammed.
China does not recognize the international tribunal’s ruling.
The international tribunal did not have the standing to make the ruling that it did. China’s claim to the ECS predates the UN and the international court, the UN (lead by the USA) stole control over the sea and retroactively legalized their theft while China was fighting a civil war.
For the record, Taiwan claims precisely the same thing. But they’re a US-backed puppet regime so they can’t move against the US the way that the PRC can.
China’s claim is the same as Italy claiming the whole Mediterranean as their own because at some point the Roman empire claimed it (Mare Nostrum, literally “our sea”). That’s not how it works and it’s clearly bullshit
I didn’t see Taiwan ramming anyone, did I? Also Taiwan is claiming to be China and all that because the PRC wants to keep the status quo. If Taiwan were to publicly renounce their pre revolution status and declare themselves an independent nation it would precipitate a crisis with China.
False comparison. The treaties that established their claim is from the 19th century and were signed by their direct predecessor state.
Well, that’s a lie. It’s not from the 19th century, it’s from the 20th century. It’s not from a treaty, but a statement by the RoC government, and there was no signee, because it’s not a treaty.
Specifically, the RoC published a map in 1947 showing 11 dashed lines. Mao then adopted the claim after he took power and changed the map in 9 dashed lines, in 2013 then the PRC added a 10th line near Taiwan. Also the PRC ratified the UNCLOS in 1996, which should make the whole point moot.
It’s almost as if it’s made up bullshit to justify Chinese imperialism, don’t you think?
Source: just look at fucking wikipedia
Hyper focusing on the 11- or 9-dash line is a lie by omission. China’s usage of and claims to the area predate the Republic of China too, and are established in multiple treaties signed by the Qing with colonialist powers, which is what I was referring to. Like it or not the PRC is the successor government to the ROC even though the ROC still exists in Taiwan, that’s why the PRC eventually took over the UN security council seat, and because of that by precedent the PRC inherits the ROC’s territorial claims, who inherited them from the Qing.
1 - I’m not the one hyper focusing on the 9 or 10 or 11 dash line* China is the one hyper focusing
2 - there’s no treaty that specifically mentions those territories, which is why China has to resort to a made up map with some unclear made up lines. If there were a real treaty, they’d use that to argue
3 - Even if there were a treaty, the validity would be questionable. Is the treaty between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union regarding the partitioning of Poland still valid? Would a German invasion of Poland be justified by that treaty? Or by Russia?
4 - China has signed UNCLOS, a much more modern and real treaty, with clear laws. They then went to the UNCLOS tribune to plead their case and lost in court.
5 - it’s just imperialism. They want to control more territory, so they do
^(* Historical claims may vary depending on current political objectives )
Your definition of imperialism is straight out of the 3rd century BC, comrade.