this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
108 points (100.0% liked)
worldnews
5390 readers
1 users here now
Rules:
-
Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
-
Post titles should be the same as the article title.
-
No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.
Instance-wide rules always apply.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a little more complicated than that. After Japan was defeated, every country started fighting over territory in the South China Sea. The nine dash line was something the Republic of China came up with in 1946, before the Communist revolution even happened. In fact, it used to be called the eleven dash line before the PRC decided to stop fighting with Vietnam over naval borders. Taiwan still claims they are the rightful controllers of the eleven dash line. It's not stealing so much as it's not giving up what they already have.
Except they don't really have it. It's a claim they try to back up by retroactively creating accomplished facts, like their artificial islands and this floating barrier. This would require their claims to be legitimate though, which they aren't, neither under maritime law nor international recognition. It was as made up in 1946 as it is now, for both the PRC and the ROC. The only clear indicator of ownership in the South China sea is the EEZ, which doesn't give China anything close to its claims.
Every border and boundary is made up. Whoever parks enough ships in an area is the one that gets to control that area.
You're moving the goalposts; before it was about China owning the SCS, now it's about military force determining ownership? Also, that's not how international law works. We're past the age of conquerors, when a country does that, it's rightfully seen as an international pariah. See Russia.
I'm not moving goalposts. Who determines international law? Typically, mutual diplomatic agreement between the nations involved. The amount of disputed maritime borders in the world is a very long one. It's not like China is the only country doing this kind of thing. But you live in the imperial core, so you hear this as if China is the only country that's evil enough to do such a thing and nod solomly.
Exactly, and this is what has happened with multiple claimants that have resolved past disputes, including the PRC in some cases. However, as part of this mutual agreement, international law is also administered through international treaties and bodies such as the UNCLOS, to which the PRC is a signatory, therefore agreeing to its judgements. It provides the legal framework for maritime borders with EEZs, with the PRC claim greatly exceeding their EEZ, and ruled against the PRC, which it did not recognize despite their signatory status. To unilaterally, militarily enforce their claim anyway is therefore violating international law.
You're doing it again, this is not only moving the goalposts but also whataboutism. We were talking specifically about the SCS dispute, where of course the PRC is mentioned because Western imperialists are far less relevant, regardless of their own disputes that they of course also have elsewhere. Vietnam also violates international law here, which I will acknowledge, but that has not been the point argued and it certainly is less capable of imperialism than superpowers like the US or China. The point is not that only the PRC does it, but that it also does - and that it needs to stop just like anyone else. Imperialism is not something only the West can do, it is determined by actions - the PRC can also be imperialist, and it could be argued that this military action ignorant of international law is such an example.
I won't participate in this discussion any further if you continue the personal name-calling. You don't know me, don't accuse me of being manipulated by imperialism.
I did no such name calling and I feel like you're just saying this in an attempt to give you ammunition to report me. Very lazy. Calling out whataboutism for me pointing out the common pitfalls of the constant negotiations and renegotiations of maritime borders is also quite lazy. This was also never a discussion about imperialism either. I referred to the imperial core within which we as a Western society are thereby influenced and therefore are manipulated. As for UNCLOS, this is something the west has overwhelming control over, and as a result, have overwhelming control over deciding maritime borders from a legal standpoint. But, if China were really breaking the rules unfairly, instead of simply enforcing borders they've claimed for almost 80 years, they could just kick China out, then. Simple as that. Unless if course they need China so bad they're forced to accept the maritime borders they've claimed for almost 80 years. Never once called you a name...